My grandfather was an anarchist in the spanish civil war. He was a poor farmer and in the thirties found a group of like minded individuals that was based on mutual aid. That's how he learned how to read, got essential resources and picked up boxing. When war broke out he was captured in combat and became a POW, where he met my grandma. Cool guy pt. 2 in the comments
@@Andrewism A world without rule is at risk of self-destruction.... if there is no one to enforce any rule, then what stops one individual from commiting an atrocity against orders..... Freedom does not guarantee peace and peace does not guarantee freedom... So anarchy needs a compromise.... but this compromise comes at the cost of anarchy loosing its meaning and purpose.... What most of us consider Anarchy to be can only exist in an ideal world were everybody can tolerate and trust each other.... realism always kicks in in the end and people fall back to archy.....
@@thequarter2That was always the case. What stops those at the top from commiting any atrocity? Nothing, it's worse now even given the amount of power a single individual can hold and the caste systems isolating them from others.
Hey @@Andrewism ever heard of commonism(with o not u)... ... Here are some sources to start: Capital redefined A commonist value theory for liberating life. Commonist tendencies Mutual aid beyond communism. Commonism A new astetics of the real.
As a burnt-out, tired audhd person, I appreciate so much that you are breaking down these concepts for us in a clear, concise way, with further readings suggested. I can’t do all the reading and studying that I wish right now, but these videos still help me learn and keep me in touch with my interests. The concepts in anarchy make me feel more human and more hopeful than anything else I’ve experienced and I appreciate that you make this videos, I can access different affirming ideas in a way that works for my disabilities
As another burnt-out, tired audhd person, I can really relate to that whole not reading as much as I want to and having to watch videos like these. I used to read audiobooks while doing other stuff but now I do nothing. It really does feel like the hierarchies of today are the only reason we are disordered (Which is a word I like because it's sort of like we oppose the current order) and our conflicts with society's mold are the symptoms, so anarchy gives me a lot of hope too. I hope we both find ways to cope and liberate ourselves even if there is no revolution in our time.
Hope you all feel better. Remember, it’s not the ADHD that slows you down. It’s the burn out. I tell ADHD people all the time- you can read and enjoy studying books just as much as the next person. You’re not dumb. It’s about overcoming burn out and depression. If I told myself, “I have ADHD, so I can’t read,” then I might as well say I can’t read because I’m too dumb.
@@wellesradio ADHD is very often comorbid with dyslexia. Also have you tried reading a book while also having an argument with the author/yourself? I know reading is not passive for anyone, but it is a maze of off-ramps for anyone with ADHD. {edit} I should have said minefield instead of maze. For what it's worth. More interesting == more off-ramps. Better writing == fewer off-ramps.
@@thumper8684 Definitely relate to getting "off-ramped" as you say when reading. Honestly looking into dyslexia I relate pretty well, I just managed it well enough to not notice it was a problem. Story of my life, add that to the list of comorbidities!
Me: "I dunno about this whole 'Anarchy' business." 10 minutes later: "Wait... wait-wait-wait... there is a distinction between 'Issuing Orders' and 'Giving Instructions'?" Mind = Blown!!
Anarchy is a wonderful idea, yet has a quite a few hardcore weaknesses! These ones do need some consideration before it can ever have a kind of success, I fear. 1. Anarchists I met had often the most judgemental attitudes towards others, 'be part of the culture of be out' and no sense of humour. For me goes: If I can't play in it, I don't want to be part of the revolution. ;) 2.Freedom from state influence is often abused by big corporations or gangs. There's always people who'll consciously try the abuse the system and will exploit weaknesses. 3. This is a sad one, masculinity. The philosophy is too much a mental developed ideology that will only work when we all play along. Get it, anarchy demands playing along to work. Maybe not with authorities, but with the model, and everyone feeling able to judge others for breaking some rule. I support collaborative anarchy, or even better collaborative forms of regenerative design, as part of looking for a more human organic way to how people already love to organise and according to what nature needs. For if we fail to restore nature, or make space for it, all human squabble about how we should organise is a distraction, unless it seeks to help. For this is the one big indicator: are you seeking to help the bigger whole with your actions? And yes, democracy is sick and barbaric. It's ritual tribal warfare, with a lot of cheats. Yet how to grow above and beyond? Anarchy? For there is one last huge obstacle: convenience. A supermarket offers convenience. Run my own gardens, fruit orchard and have weekly meetings to make it work is just way too much fuzz. Nobody wants fuzz, and most are also caught in the abusive lie, that we don't have time for this, especially those caught in bullshit jobs. And at the same time, I love this channel, and its search for answers to huge social questions.
The necessity of hierarchy have been so ingrained on all of us, that it is so difficult for people to imagine a world without it. Every time I talk to people about this, they say "But then nothing will get done!". We are so used to having other people tell us what to do, that we cannot imagine a world without someone leading us. I think that the problem is that having a leader actually comforts a lot of people, because it means they do not have to take responsibility for their actions in particular or for the state of the world in general. I think that is why hierarchical structures appeal to people that are not leaders themselves.
My gut instinct is kind of the opposite of "nothing will get done!". I think "nobody will get paid!" People are often very willing to do work they see needs done, and much less willing to ask for some form of compensation.
Are those all the kind of people who have been socialized to do nothing but work and binge watch garbage? Have they never met people with hobbies or causes? Nothing will get done? These are people who have never been to a makerspace or volunteered at a shelter or a food bank or taken their kids to a neighbourhood play group- I know a ton of people who "Get more done" outside the realm of paid labour than inside it. And none of them need anyone to tell them what to do. They see a thing, and they do it.
@@FunkyLittlePoptartwhat about people who cant get stuff done such as the disabled, elderly, children, etc.? Sure, theres no guarantee they get taken care of in current societies, but I'm still concerned about their chances in an anarchy.
I agree. Before I was in my current job I thought management and bosses were useless. But now being in that position I’ve realized that most people haven’t been taught how to lead themselves and be self directed. It would take a whole re-education for most people because everyone grows up without the responsibility of thinking for themselves because of our school system. I didn’t realize how deep that went for a long time because i was homeschooled. I think under the current mindset a boss is necessary, but I think mindsets could be changed
thank you for the language around expertise. for years ive been saying "deferring is not the same as obeying" to describe the difference between taking direction from someone who has important skills or knowledge versus going along with an authority's demands. this is a much more concise way to describe it. we are forever in your debt. thank you.
It is so sad to me how much anxiety I and many people feel at the idea of "not knowing what to do" in an anarchic system. We are trained to look to an authority for guidance and permission before acting. The idea of a group of people going to fix a sewer without permission or central planning blew my mind. I am a teacher and in my classroom I have seen my students follow their impulses to solve problems. I hate how many times a day I stop students from doing so. I even stop them from helping each other. I have so much pressure to fit all that they need to learn into the school day and I don't have time for five kids to all dive to collect one student's fallen papers. But it's awful. I ask myself "how would the people in an anarchic society know what to do each day and what needs to get done?" But I know even within myself that I feel impulses to do things a certain way, like organize my class a certain way, but I'm constantly looking over my shoulder, checking in with my superiors, making sure I'm doing it the Right Way. I have lost the ability to trust my own judgement and I fear that my job is only to perpetuate the cycle to the next generation.
Worse yet, many treat the absence of permission from authority or central planning as the absence of organisation or planning in general. They treat hierarchy as synonymous with society. It's unfortunate, and your observation of your role as a teacher under the current system rings true, but there's a vibrant history of anarchism and education that I intend to explore soon. Stay tuned!
If we're just talking about what people would do in a civil engineering sense, there could be some natural turnover process like for most production work. Even if people are discouraged from forming a chain of command, there would at least have to be some sort of tracking for what work was or wasn't done to avoid duplicate or needlessly destructive work. Someone could literally compile a list of what was done and hand that over to whoever comes by next. Intuitive problem solving on your own will always be a thing unless you just need someone to hold your hand through a job due to a lack of competency in that specific job, but it wouldn't be that safe for people to just walk up out of nowhere and just start doing maintenance on something like a plane or train with no relevant context 100% of the time. Most workers, from what I've noticed, are capable of huddling together and deciding who can take care of what, but there's also less that could possibly lost in translation in terms of what does or doesn't actually need to be done when at least one person is specifically tasked to gather that information so that it can be dispersed the same way it was received. If I use my PTO to come in later for a work day, it's much more effective for me to just ask the floor lead what the status of the shop is instead of talking to 5 different people all focused on their specific task. That floor lead could still be out on the floor working as well if we absolutely can't have a leader of any sort, but I'm naturally going to go to them first since they will objectively know more than me in that moment about what tasks they were left with as the person with the role of information gathering that day. Some people may not even want that role as well. I personally know that all I feel like doing at work is my job and clocking out at the end of the day. I'll gladly stand aside and wait for whatever the group feels like doing because I'm virtually on autopilot when I show up to work.
@@normandy2501 A floor lead doesn't need to have authority in order to keep track of what's going on. A group of people can recognize "Oh, Jim always seems to know what everyone is doing, hey thanks Jim". And Jim can be like "Yeah, I can do a better job of that if you want; come tell me when you start a task, and I won't have to run around as much." Honestly I think anarchy is already in use way more than people seem to think. What work people do at their jobs is a blend between what they're ordered to do, and the things they alone recognize need done and then put in the effort to make happen. At my workplace at least there's plenty of spontaneous stuff-doing followed by "oh hey, thanks for doing that, it made a big difference". Businesses seek out employees who can set their own goals and take initiative on stuff ("spearhead"). The main non-anarchic thing is that of course, the benefits of this work are distributed by those in charge. But even then -- not all businesses run on tightly controlled, top-down budgets as we seem to imagine. Small businesses are improvisational. Also, there are people who go around voluntarily repairing public drinking fountains or even highway signs. But that kind of anarchy is not common.
@@normandy2501 Having a central contact for floor related info is just delegation, it doesn't become hierarchist until that floor lead gets followers, bigger awards, and a bigger vote on who should have his role. A delegate that can be easily replaced is anarchist, a delegate that cannot be easily replaced is hierarchist.
That's the crux of it. We _evolved_ to collaborate and work together, the instincts your children show are integral to our humanity. Yet they are instincts that the owning class needs trained out of people, if they are to continue to rule. We are all far more brainwashed and indoctrinated into dependence on authorities than we think, and it has beggared both our imaginations, and our collective confidence in our own skills and problem-solving capacities.
Oh my god Andrew. I've been studying anarchism and engaging in anarchist projects for close to two decades now, and still you've taught me something new here. You've made some space for me to reevaluate some of my own ways of thinking. Well done and thank you!
I'm pretty sure that this isn't what was meant (since you do talk about intentional organizing), but the repeated emphasis on things being "organic" felt reminiscent of how some activists will have a romantic ideal of movements developing spontaneously and thus neglect to put in the long-term, methodical work of active organizing that's necessary for movements to not just fizzle out or be co-opted. Regardless, I enjoyed the video and your perspective, as always.
Yeah, it feels like this side of the theory desperately needs to be coupled with AnRel's remarks that activities that don't get us closer to The Goal (liberation of all, or whatever you want to call it) aren't the right Direct Action, taking 3 steps forward and 3 steps back isn't the right Direct Action, stagnating politically isn't the right Direct Action etc.
I thought I had a pretty good grasp on Anarchist thought until I watched this video. Now I realize I have so much more to learn. Thank you for your work and voice!
i found this channel after someone posted a comment that Aaron Bushnell made on a Reddit thread naming this channel as one very educational source that he loved and recommended. i’ve fallen in love with this content, because it has given me the hope that the world will be brighter one day. the seeds of revolution have been sowed, we will not be crushed. long live the resistance ✊
I am also here because of Aaron. May he rest in peace and power. Ive been a longtime anarchist. I have complex feelings about everything happening and that has happened over the last few months, but am happy to be in good company with Aaron and Andrew and many others.
I've been here for a bit longer than that, but this is super sweet to hear that Aaron brought you here. I also recommend Zoe Baker and Anark. They are also anarchist youtubers
@@jessica_s9651 i did find Anark when his videos came up in my recommended! i will absolutely look into Zoe Baker as well though :) thank you for the recommendation
A world without rule is at risk of self-destruction.... if there is no one to enforce any rule, then what stops one individual from commiting an atrocity against orders..... Freedom does not guarantee peace and peace does not guarantee freedom... So anarchy needs a compromise.... but this compromise comes at the cost of anarchy loosing its meaning and purpose.... What most of us consider Anarchy to be can only exist in an ideal world were everybody can tolerate and trust each other.... realism always kicks in in the end and people fall back to archy.....
@@thequarter2 The threat of retaliation usually is what stops them. Same reason we don't use atomic bombs. We could use them technically but it would also likely be the last time we use them haha!
Interesting video. I have one slightly pedantic point and I hope I don't come across as aggressive. You claim at 23:00 that "early in his politics anarchist Errico Malatesta was in favour of majority voting within anarchist organisations when there was no consensus. Yet he still conceded that decisions should only be binding on those who favour them. Later on he would reject the rule of the majority entirely." I'm not aware of any evidence to support this interpretation. In the quote you cite Malatesta is just making a point he'd been making since he became an anarchist and which was just a standard position among anarchists within the 1st international and beyond: anarchism is against all forms of government, including democractic government/majority rule, and advocates free association. Italian anarchism emerged within the revolutionary republican movement and so was full of people who had initially been supporters of a democratic republic but now rejected it in favour of anarchy. So Malatesta rejected majority rule when he abandoned republicanism and became an anarchist at the age of 17/18. Malatesta consistently advocates the same position on anarchist decision-making over and over again: unanimous agreement/majority voting + decisions are only binding for those who vote in favour of them + free association. In 1884, when he was 31, he wrote, "in practice one would do what one could; everything is done to reach unanimity, and when this is impossible, one would vote and do what the majority wanted, or else put the decision in the hands of a third party who would act as arbitrator, respecting the inviolability of the principles of equality and justice which the society is based on." (Malatesta 1884) I wouldn't call this early in his politics. Elsewhere he clarified that he advocated majority voting under two circumstances. He explained in 1907 in response to anarchists who rejected all forms of voting: "the vote used to record opinions certainly has nothing anti-anarchist about it, just as the vote is not anti-anarchist when it is only a practical and freely accepted means to resolve practical issues that do not allow for multiple solutions at the same time, and when the minority is not obliged to submit to the majority, if this does not suit or please them" (Malatesta 2023, 258-9). In other words, majority voting as polling and as decision-making when one decision must be made and multiple solutions cannot co-exist eg if a person should be made editor of a newspaper or not. He did not regard either form of majority voting as a form of majority rule providing it occurs within a free association and does not consist of relations of domination. Compare the following quotes: 1897: "If a railroad, for instance, were under consideration, there would be a thousand questions as to the line of the road, the grade, the material, the type of the engines, the location of the stations, etc., etc., and opinions on all these subjects would change from day to day, but if we wish to finish the railroad we certainly cannot go on changing everything from day to day, and if it is impossible to exactly suit everybody, it is certainly better to suit the greatest possible number; always, of course, with the understanding that the minority has all possible opportunity to advocate its ideas, to afford them all possible facilities and materials to experiment, to demonstrate, and to try to become a majority. So in all matters not amenable to several solutions running simultaneously, or where differences of opinion are not so great as to make it worthwhile parting company, with each faction doing as it will, or where the duty of solidarity imposes unity, it is reasonable, fair, and necessary for the minority to defer to the majority. But the submission of the minority must be the effect of free will determined by a consciousness of necessity, must never be made a principle, a law, which must, therefore, be applied in all cases, even when there is no necessity for it. And just here is the difference between Anarchy and any kind of government" (Malatesta 2016, 18-19). 1927: "Certainly anarchists recognise that where life is lived in common it is often necessary for the minority to come to accept the opinion of the majority. When there is an obvious need or usefulness in doing something and, to do it requires the agreement of all, the few should feel the need to adapt to the wishes of the many. And usually, in the interests of living peacefully together and under conditions of equality, it is necessary for everyone to be motivated by a spirit of concord, tolerance and compromise. But such adaptation on the one hand by one group must on the other be reciprocal, voluntary and must stem from an awareness of need and from goodwill to prevent the running of social affairs from being paralysed by obstinacy. It cannot be imposed as a principle and statutory norm. This is an ideal which, perhaps, in daily life in general, is difficult to attain in entirety, but it is a fact that in every human grouping anarchy is that much nearer where agreement between majority and minority is free and spontaneous and exempt from any imposition that does not derive from the natural order of things." (Malatesta 2014, 488). Notice that the points are exactly the same and expressed in almost the same words. This includes the position you emphasize when citing the quote from his platformism critique: "the submission of the minority must be the effect of free will determined by a consciousness of necessity, must never be made a principle, a law, which must, therefore, be applied in all cases, even when there is no necessity for it." Malatesta, Errico. 1884. Between Peasants. Malatesta, Errico. 2014. The Method of Freedom: An Errico Malatesta Reader. Edited by Davide Turcato. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Malatesta, Errico. 2016. A Long and Patient Work: The Anarchist Socialism of L’Agitazione 1897-1898. Edited by Davide Turcato. Chico, CA: AK Press. Malatesta, Errico. 2023. The Armed Strike: The Long London Exile of 1900-1913. Edited by Davide Turcato. Chico, CA: AK Press.
You wrote a whole essay with a works cited page 😭 No shade, though. I get the point that you're making. I love your videos btw. I also bought and read your book. It helped me better understand the concept of means and ends unity. You do great work :)
I love both your work. @anarchozoe is your personal position the same as Malatesta? I also wonder if free association has limitations where there is large disagreement especially over things like allocation of resources and projects that affect an entire society, etc?
Thank you for your work Andrew, it is truly aspiring. Great timing too with International Worker's Day, and the recent Pro-Palestine protests at American Universities. You all give us all hope, and we can all work together to achieve a better work
Can you talk about how people who inflict serious harm will be able to freely associate without people just deciding to lynch them? Can you talk about how bouncers are different to cops? Can you also talk about how food production, raw materials collection, distribution of food and materials, and water distribution can and or is being made more anarchic?
I really really really want to believe in this. But listening to this gave me a 1000 more questions than it answered. And raised some serious concerns. I dont say that from malice but genuine concern and desire to find common ground
Honestly, that is something I love about anarchism. I'm never in full agreement and I am very skeptical of a lot of the concepts I hear about- but pulling thst discomfort, disagreement, and skepticism apart is fascinating. I find even completely outside of ideological anarchism, in a society with a state and everything, anarchist concepts have so much value and that's what motivates me to learn more and explore those differences and questions, rather than finding an ideology that I 100% agree with or anything
As a Marxist, I love your videos; your personal experiences used as examples for well-researched and thought out points that I can never disagree with. A problem I’ve often despised from my camp has been an obsession with beating capitalism at its own game - raving about the explosion of industrial productivity in the USSR for example instead of focusing on what that goal that was done for. A true revolutionary is fueled by love for mankind and I think you embody that completely. When Revolution comes I wish it looks like yours. And the Caribbean accent is always great to listen to lol
@@tankiegirl Ok, then why not support social democracy? At least social democracy can give the quality of life improvements that ML states have, without the genocides and authoritarianism.
We could do it. I really truly believe that it is our fear of the danger of change that holds us back, But We could do it. We've always been able to do it. Stand up, And be true.
What an excellent intro to anarchism, especially appreciate the helpful definition of authority! This video will change some minds. Ps that section on democracy was illuminating as well
this video is changing my views slightly and my definitions heavily and i actually dont think ill be calling myself pro democracy any longer great video!
What im having trouble wrapping my head around is how we would deal with problems that cannot be solved by disassociating like what to plant in a specific spot. what if i want to plant corn and you want to plant tomatoes? there is no consensus needed for action, so discussion should lead to consensus. that can still be entirely freely associated, but what if i agreed to plant tomatoes if i could have my corn next year, but when the time comes you disregard that decision? I obviously dont want to force you to abide by a decision you made last years, but i also dont want to be forced to move somewhere that i could have my corn. I think space might break the ideal of free association sometimes
A world without rule is at risk of self-destruction.... if there is no one to enforce any rule, then what stops one individual from commiting an atrocity against orders..... Freedom does not guarantee peace and peace does not guarantee freedom... So anarchy needs a compromise.... but this compromise comes at the cost of anarchy loosing its meaning and purpose.... What most of us consider Anarchy to be can only exist in an ideal world were everybody can tolerate and trust each other.... realism always kicks in in the end and people fall back to archy.....
This video could also be titled "Anarchy: what it actually is and how to build it" Too many people think Anarchy is The Joker (TM) or Zaheer from the worst Avatar series, and that therefore, as a political ideology, should be mocked and dismissed, while clinging to the exploitative ways of capital and its enslaving nature. I hope your vid changes many minds, and helps people break out of the neo-liberal mind prison.
Anarchy most certainly should be mocked and dismissed. It has no feasible way of actually developing in the world and even less of a chance of remaining on any large scale. It is a pipe dream at best for those who want to be their own boss while disregarding everyone else.
@brandonmercado8438 Democacy should be mocked and dismissed. The "great image" of the large-scale Society (Capital S) you're touting builds itself on the backs of the proletarians (capitalism), patriarchy, settler-colonialism, needless destruction of environments and the animals living there, etc. etc. etc.
Just when I’ve been realizing that being at my painfully centrist college has almost deradicalized me by just not having other anarchists there, you come out with this banger, perfect timing (they do have a pro-Palestine movement though but it’s very small and outnumbered and forced by the college to be more moderate than it is, I do give them a ton of credit for existing here though)
@@N1ghthavvk "i just hope the south african and algerian resistance arent pro terrorist" "i just hope the slaves revolting chattel slavery dont cross my liberal sensibilities"
@@af8828 I'm sorry, but were you actually there, on the ground in Gaza? I am basing my opinion on the facts I've been told by people who actually experienced what happened. And consequently there's only one side that I can reasonably empathize with: The civilian population victimized by both of their respective rulers. Anything else and you're falling for propaganda and lies by people who like to choose their truths. Hamas and Netanyahu (rightwing Israeli politics) have to go, if there's to be lasting peace. I recommend "Tom David Frey" here on YT, if you'd like to have some insight into ordinary perspectives (you don't need to understand the language - just watch).
@@N1ghthavvk people who experienced which event? Over 120 years of colonialism, multiple mass expulsions and 75 years of apartheid? Ohh or do you mean the literal extreme-right settlers (keyword: settlers, not civilians) squatting on kibbutzes attained illegally by violation of international law and immense violence, who were peft unprotected? Settlers who actively serve in the colonial occupation force? Riight.
@@N1ghthavvk you may have trouble defining terrorism without it including the united states, israel, and most other "first-world" nations; it is more useful to look at this conflict as oppression and resistance. we dont have to like the full set of values the resistance holds as individuals or as an organization, we just have to acknowledge that they are the ones resisting the oppressive power. when the oppression ends, we can address the problematic values that arise afterwards, but today our focus must remain on the oppression.
Andrew, your videos are a great breath of fresh air, even since I first stumbled upon them a few years ago. Really great anarchist content that RUclips sorely was missing. And the videos have only gotten better; these two recent videos are among your best :)
I do think there’s more nuance here depending on how you define religion. Spiritual beliefs and practices have been some of the strongest ways of holding communities together, and resisting the continuous assault of capitalism. Obviously top down hierarchical religion that exerts control and limits freedom are bad.
Yea it was crazy when the Crusades happened and all the men stayed home cooking food and raising the kids and the women went to die in a foreign land, right?
@@PhantasmalBlast I’m not aware of any current religions that work without hierarchy of some form. Religion inevitably turns into a tool to abuse and gain power over people.
Thank you so much for spreading the word of libertarian communism! Many people, even "anarchists" seem to believe that anarchy=chaos, but the truth is, anarchy is the only realistic - and historically successful - way to achieve the abolishment of oppression, in all its forms.
Not all anarchisms are communism: There are mutualist tendencies, neo-Proudhonian anarchism prominent among them. To box the whole of "anarchism" into one single category you like (libertarian communism) is to ignore other tendencies that don't wish to belong to the category, and to monopolize term "anarchism." As for the boogeyman of chaos, the way you're using that word is so clearly a scare-tactic that I couldn't help myself. You're using 'chaos' the way governmentalists use largely that same word to describe anarchy. Anarchy can certainly be thought as a positive non-pejorative chaos. By putting anarchists who are sympathetic to chaotic forms of organization in scare quotes, you're implying that insurrectionist anarchists aren't anarchists, and neither is the anarchist writer Peter Gelderloos. His book, Worshipping Power, has a chapter dedicated to the idea that that anarchists challenge people to view chaotic ways of organizing and chaotic ways of decision-making as not inherently pejorative. "The reasoning is simple. Hierarchical societies are easier to control, and hierarchies cannot defend themselves from more powerful hierarchies. Officials from a state cannot easily communicate with members of a society in which decisions are made in open assemblies, or societies with chaotic rather than unitary decision-making. As an important aside, I would challenge the reader to accept chaotic organization as a superior form, even though we are usually only presented with a pejorative vision of chaos. In unitary decision-making, an entire polity must abide by a single decision, or there must be a clear hierarchy to govern and rank the decisions made at different levels, whether in a bureaucratic or federalistic system. All governments, from fascist dictatorships to direct formal democracies, share the principle of unitary decision-making and disseminate the assumptions on which such decision-making is based. Chaotic decision-making fosters the recognition that society can function spontaneously as a decentralized network, permits conflict as a healthy force in our lives, encourages a multiplicity of decision-making spaces pervading all moments of life, well beyond the formal, masculine sphere of the congress or the dictat, and allows different, even conflicting, decisions to be made at different points in the human network, while encouraging a collective consciousness so all decision-makers can maximize their intelligence and accordingly harmonize. Humans have an evolutionarily tested ability to utilize chaotic decision-making at a macro scale, and the only people who dispute this are those who wish to permanently infantilize their compatriots so as to control them by monopolizing decision-making in unitary structures." * Worshiping Power, Take Me to Your Leader: The Politics of Alien Invasion
@@Grundrisse indeed it is true that i used libertarian communism as a broader term, so thank you for clarifying that! As a person who has been in plenty protests (Greece), it is important to distinguish true, educated nihilists and the such from the uneducated, reactionary teens who just want to mindlessly smash things up; of course violence is important, but unorganised, uncoordinated violence is detrimental to everyone
What is to stop a group with more power than you demanding things you can not provide? What happens when that group imposes their will upon you because you do not have the means to defend yourself?
I could imagine an anarchic system working, but there's a few issues I see that I can't seem to get ... solved. Perhaps somebody has ideas: * The transition from a globalized economy seems very hard, considering that we rely on specialized goods from parts of the world very far away, especially so if those parts are not yet anarchist too. How do you continue trading with them, when they want money, but an anarchist society doesn't use it? It may still be there, accessible for use if necessary to interact with the other parts of the world, but then... * How do you prevent bad actors from just taking all or most of the money and fleeing to a capitalist part of the world? The issue with free association is that a reaction to such a "crime" is presumably not immediate and would be too late to prevent the damage to the local society. Maybe somebody would be alerted if it was a heist, but whati f it was just social engineering, where the guardian of the money was tricked into handing it over, and would not expect it back anyways, on promise of some goods being delivered later, for somebody else, who'd only realize it too late? Effectively, you'd require people to do work in very similar "jobs" as before, but you can't prevent people from leaving, in an anarchist society, can you? * On a similar note, what about bad actors in different contexts? What if conflict escalates? What if a neighbouring empire decides to invade? Presumably the reaction would be too late to prevent entry, and would end in a guerilla warfare, where the attacker will presumably retreat, but only at the cost of way too many lives. This WILL definitely happen to the first bigger experiment. It might not to the next few, when it is established fact that invading would not be profitable, but some national actor will come for the "undefended" and "unrepresented" resources first. * How do you transition from a "call to arms" utilizing the follower-effect, to a truly anarchist movement? It feels impossible. Media will interview some person, claiming to be able to present the ideas (and there will be people like that, maybe somebody like you with the gift of communication). But such attention will naturally lead to more and more interviews, and more and more power ending up attributed to that person, even against them rejecting it as an anarchist. * Even in the actual event of an anarchist "region" establishing itself, communication to neighbouring political entities will be strained from the beginning: "What do you mean, you can't guarantee this treaty being upheld? But it's the Genova Convention! You're not a real country! We'll have to send blue-helmed troops to establish order until a new government is elected!" You may argue that this issue could be solved by free association, and I'd believe you, but the other countries wouldn't. You could send some (possibly) constantly changing people to represent the region in supra-national entities, but even if these people were to do their best, and the society as a whole would do their best too, it will be a struggle that I can't imagine anybody winning in the current political situation. No way, any of the main actors would allow an anarchist society to establish itself. It'd be much too unstable in their eyes. I think we won't see an actual anarchist society experiment succeed in our lifetimes. And I couldn't imagine myself defending it against the big guns. To be completely honest: I'm much too comfortable in my current and very privileged situation to consider radical change "worth it". I'm open to the small changes, and try to do my best to point any groups I'm a part of into the right direction, but that is all inside a casual athmosphere, where people are willing to listen. It's not inside of the workplace, or politics, where entrenched ideas are the established rule.
I’m in a similar boat. It is clear to me, for many of the reasons you listed, that the establishment of an anarchic society within the current international order is impossible on a large scale. No society or organization exists in a vacuum. As long as states (or hierarchies in general) exist anywhere, anarchy will never be able to be sustained.
Not going to reply to all of that but to point 2: If a group of people in an anarchist society rounded up all the money in the area and left... what would that do that you think merits a response? they leave with some bags of paper that have no value anymore now that the state that backed that currency isn't in power, and the community that's left has no need of money whatsoever, let alone the money backed by the state that just stopped existing, and they don't need or want the people who obviously very much didn't want to live in that community. So.. cool they escaped to capitalistville, hope they have good, long, and fulfilling lives there.
@@JuniperHatesTwitterlikeHandles Did you completely miss the point about money being necessary in a transition period, to keep up trade with other nations? It is not useless. Sure, you won't have your own money, but you'll need dollars to keep buying oil or whatever else the society might need. Or do you want to regress to the dark ages?
You guys are almost communists already. Read Lenin, Marx and Engels, you'll see something that makes sense to you that's for sure. All these concerns are actually the things they wrote about a lot.
There's a reason anarchist societies don't last long or only last at the largesse of a greater power. If resources are valuable and there's no established power structure to defend or exploit them, someone will figure out a way to do that. The reason that global capitalism is the dominant system is because it outcompeted the other ones, both on merits of function and merits of stomping the other ones out of existence. Not a moral or ethical judgment, but just sort of a historical fact.
I was kind of thinking about this without even knowing it was anarchy. I was thinking, what if instead of states and governments there would be entirely separate entities for different purposes. For example, there might be a ‘government’ for providing education to people of a certain place, they have this goal but are not bound by a higher entity, overlayed with countless other ‘governments’ each with their own goal, interacting but not antagonizing each other. Another might be to defend or provide law to a certain region, but would not interfere with the affairs of any other structure. They wouldn’t have control over everything inside them and you could opt out. Or a completely separate system with the goal of providing food for people. Etc etc etc. The problem I see with anarchy though is that without rules how would we stop states from forming again? They could simply proclaim their laws and arrest anyone in their borders who don’t agree.
A world without rule is at risk of self-destruction.... if there is no one to enforce any rule, then what stops one individual from commiting an atrocity against orders..... Freedom does not guarantee peace and peace does not guarantee freedom... So anarchy needs a compromise.... but this compromise comes at the cost of anarchy loosing its meaning and purpose.... What most of us consider Anarchy to be can only exist in an ideal world were everybody can tolerate and trust each other.... realism always kicks in in the end and people fall back to archy.....
@@thequarter2 You can't have atrocities without blind obedience. You can have injustices, and bad experiences, but for atrocities you need centralized control.
@@bramvanduijn8086 ignorance exists... if you are not informed or are at risk of being harm, atrocities may occur... Mass murderers commit atrocities without any control from anyone...
Had to pause at one minute to say…. Wow!! That was an amazing introduction. I could imagine those words being part of a blockbuster movie scene. Well done.
Hot damn, I've never seen a video on anarchism that's as good as this one. Some of the ideas that you put forward are incredibly complicated, so I'm wondering how we should set about explaining them to people that have absolutely zero knowledge of politics, or that are perhaps even unaware that they're living within a political economy? For me, this is the biggest challenge to anarchists moving forward--Our theories are sublime but the way that we educate people about those theories is not.
This video provides an excellent answer to the question of consensus in anarchy, and it appears that it has been hiding in plain sight all the while. I've come away with a deeper appreciation for free association, thank you!
Excellent video! When you were listing the archic systems at the start, I squealed in delight when I saw democracy on the list since I don't see many anarchists with that viewpoint tbh ☺️ I was also thrilled to see Shawn Wilbur's work discussed in the video since he was a big influence on my anarchism 😎🔥 Keep up the great work, loving your videos so far! 😄
I was an anarchist in my 20s but realized that authority is necessary and important. Moral questions never go away, but systems are like language: we don’t invent them out of nowhere, and we are born into them. Authority and hierarchy are facts of the world. Knowing my place isn’t an imposition, it’s an intelligence and alertness both within and without. In some senses we always live in anarchy. In other senses we never do. Everybody cocreates the state of things at all times.
@@kencat6980 No, anonymous Internet person. I was. I just had life experiences that challenged my ideology. Did you know that your thinking, even about things that are important to you, can change?
I honestly think stuff like this channel is of much more value than alot of what's emanating from the formal ancom scene at this time, but that ain't difficult tbh. And it's not just the words but the visuals and the music etc.
How do we prevent violence between certain free associations? How do we stop discrimination? What if a group of fascists come together and make a free association with the intent of trying to reinstitute hierarchy and enacts violence on whichever minority they despise? Do we simply hope that another free association of people decide to protect that group? How do we prevent war? I view myself as a libertarian socialist, and I oppose most systems of hierarchy, but I don't know how we make a truly anarchist system resilient to the test of time. Hierarchy may not be natural, but it didn't come from nowhere. Groups of people fought over resources and they formed different groups to organise their fights over such resources and over 1000s of years, those groups built to fight over and control resources eventually formed the systems of hierarchy that we are familiar with today. We might one day succeed in making a horizontal anarchist society. But what would keep it from becoming corrupted? What would stop hierarchy from reinstituting itself? How do we protect minorities from violence/coercion by the majority? I don't know the answers to these questions and my fear is that the answer is that you can't. That hierarchy, domination, violence, and coercion are inevtiable. But I do hope that we can minimize these as much as possible, and I think anarchist teachings are vital to understanding these concepts and teaching us how to analyze systems of hierarchy/how power flows.
This video has had an effect on me. Looking around at the world, I can't help but feel alone in my thoughts, opinions & values at times, as I watch other ppl constantly fight over perceived differences, submit to the subjugation of their "superiors" & generally continue to feed these systems & ways of life that are to blame for just about all of our societies' shortcomings. I do see signs of change in the world tho. As I listened to your video while at work, I thought of people locally, nationally & abroad who are utilizing mutual aid, creating structures of support & cooperation outside of hierarchical structures & beginning to move in a direction that is away from suppressive, repressive & oppressive powers that govern us. I also see hope in the student protesters going against the powers-that-be in higher education & law enforcement, standing up for ppl around the globe. I hope that I see us move in the direction of the world depicted in this video within my lifetime
To be honest, I found this video quite confusing - got the feeling more of a play with words, rather than a worked out view of the world. Still not sure how this version of "social revolution" would work? Wouldn't some people consciously need to persuade others about their viewpoint to start building "free associations"? And especially, how would you try to "mitigate conflicts in advance", when there isn't a basic agreement even in simpler things (for example, if "democracy" is good or bad - ignoring the classless approach to the question)?
You're not the only one. Semantic tap dancing and only 20 seconds of how to deal with reactionaries and opposing forces. "Organized force" yeah okay, good luck having that with zero authority and this nebulous idea of free association
The fact that you are always willing to learn and be better got my subscription. I’m not an anarchist but it’s been interesting listening/watching this video. Doesn’t hurt to learn more right?!?
Hi Andrew! Thankyou so much for all your time and effort into this channel, not only has it articulated many tangled up feelings about society but has given me the resources and confidence to educate others in my community. I really love this video and was wondering if it exists in essay/transcript form. I have friends I want to deliver this information to who would not be able to dedicate an hour to a video but can read an essay! No worries though.
I’m trying, but I kinda can’t 😂. The association of water will allow distribution based on the common good? Maybe. Hard to imagine being much better than now, especially when ‘power’ becomes entrenched, much like now.
As an anarchist, I honestly disagree with a lot of what you say here, but that's what so nice about anarchism at the end of the day. Unlike traditional statist forms of governance, anarchism is very adaptable to the needs of the people. Anarchy will never look the same from place to place, because we all have different and specific needs that we need to adapt Anarchy to. I appreciate your prespective, and although I imagine Anarchism very differently, I think that's just a given with Anarchism. Ask 10 Anarchists what they imagine the ideal Anarchist society to look like, and they will all give different answers. What matters is that however Anarchy looks, people can decide wether they want to participate in that society or not without risking their well-being when they decide not to.
Im so glad i found your channel. This was a really inspiring and thought provoking video. I already consider myself an anarchist (though this is a very recent development), but that talk about democracy was so spot on. I felt extremely uncomfortable even questioning democracy (until you mentioned free association, and i was like ah, ok I'm no longer confused), and after watching, i have to agree that it is time to stop conflating democracy with decision making.
It took a long time since I last saw one of your videos. This one is excellent. I wish there was a video like that in Portuguese. RUclips provides automatic translation for subtitles, but it's not the same thing. I'm gonna share it anyway.
Something I right now think a lot about is this idea that expertise should give you chances to decide certain things - because in a lot of cases expertise currently is mostly bound to existing systems of power. I am lying in hospital right now, and I am very well read in regards to medical knowledge. So well read that in fact I correctly identified my health condition before any doctor did. However, for the simple reason that I do not have a medical degree, I was not listened too. Which in my case has been leading to more and more frustration, because the doctors will go: "Oh, but it also could be this very rare disease." While I am sitting there like: "Yeah, or it is the thing that the blood tests tell us, that secondary symptoms tell us and everything."
do you think your situation is more or less common than someone being completely wrong about such a self-diagnosis? How many people took horse dewormer rather than getting a vaccine?
Wilbur actually talks about this in the context of expertise! I flash a footnote on it on screen but it might be missed. He calls it "authority-effect." Quote: "Authority-effect: The infamous “authority of the bootmaker,” from Bakunin’s “God and the State,” is probably the most familiar example of an instance where the uneven distribution of expertise, together with the staple nature of the object of expertise, combine to create a condition of quasi-authority, where an expert may be capable of “commanding” a situation, not because they have any right to do so, but because they occupy an advantageous position in society, thanks to the division of labor. We may be forced to take the advice of a specialist, but the source of their power to influence our decision is as much our lack of expertise and whatever exigencies we face as it is their own knowledge and skill. In a medical crisis, a doctor may be able to wield considerable power over patients without medical expertise, while in a time of good health or under circumstances where the patient has medical expertise, that power melts away. Certainly, we don’t bow to bootmakers when we don’t need boots, even if sufficient need on our part may create real power that they can wield. Credentialing systems may create a slightly different sort of authority effect, particularly where they are faulty or corrupt, by increasing the possibility of the false appearance of expertise or by limiting the ability of capable practitioners to meet the needs of others. Authority-effects are very real, in the sense that the combination of factors can compel obedience to just as great an extent as more formal authority, and they may continue to be a problem even under circumstances where the principle of authority has been rejected. But their ill effects will almost certainly be reduced as we move beyond a social model that treats authority as a foundational principle and learn to engage in anarchistic relations."
so this year I joined a socialist organisation, I'd been working with them a while unofficially but there was an introductory run down of socialist/marxist concepts for newcomers. There was one other person attending aside from the host. Very much this "intellectual Marxist" type. I had never seen them in any active spaces before, so I wondered what kind of work they were involved with. They gave this enormous bibliography of Marxist literature they'd read practically unprompted and spent a lot of the time I was there bending the host's ear. I kept trying to observe what practical application they'd applied this theory to, and had to stop myself from bursting into laughter when they said it "helps [them] win disputes on the internet". one of the questioned floated to us towards the end of this interview was "what does a socialist society look like to you?" I have never really seen myself as much of an intellectual, never necessarily had a high value of my own ideas, so I've always focused on what I can see in front of me and what I can change in the moment. I had a rough idea of how horizontal structures work and how interdependent groups with diverse mechanisms work to prop each other up, so this is what I tried to explain. so this guy laughs at me. And they say: "that sounds like Anarchy!" in this tone that let me know they think I'm an idiot. Well, after that, I thought: "ok, maybe this Anarchy thing isn't so bad. I should look into that." This is where I came upon your videos, this one specifically. I've been watching them voraciously. I don't think an ideology has ever made me feel as empowered and really let me know that I have the capacity to understand the needs of both myself and my community. There is so much kindness that it's brought me to tears on more than one occasion, I don't think I even realised how badly I needed to hear these things. I'm really grateful for this channel and channels like it. Keep it up man.
I don't know, all of this as it often appears to be, seems something that can at best exist in optimal conditions... But systems that base themselves on optimal conditions are bound to remain utopias... What if conditions aren't Ideal? Or good? Or even decent at best? For example let us suppose the most banal problem this could run into a military or policing consultive association is very good at what it does, and growing amounts of people grow to like them more and more, One among them is very charismatic, some people, a growing amount of people that deal with their purviews, like to listen to them, to work with them. People Simply gather and well these guys are good, very good, people that work with them feel growingly more comradery with them. In time these people come out as fascists and decide that well... You know what, order and discipline don't sound that bad, and, after all, considering that a large amount of the people who deal with weapons and the military are already our Friends... Well... Let's implement order and discipline, who's going to stop us the bakers? The librarians? Well you might say somewhere someone is going to come and restore anarchy, there's a whole world of anarchists and only One fascist insurgency, right? But this again is a best-case scenario... What if this isn't the case? What if there are many of these, people have indeed a tendency to *like* giving up their responsibilities to a strongman, it's quite liberating being freed from the burden of responsibility... What of due to technology the amount of gunmen that these consultive Union has been able to reach is continent-sized or more... Well, but these things have happened in hierarchies too so we are solid... I mean, perhaps, but I am not sure it's a strong enough defence because It depends on how likely or unlikely these things can happen in either. And this is the most unimaginative problem that such a system may run into.
This is an awesome video! I personally don’t prescribe to anarchy, or organized anarchy and this video confirmed my belief but it was super informative and clear :)
I'm going to free-associate the use of your home and food. If you don't agree with that, well, you have the "free self-determination" to leave. But wherever you go I will freely follow and use things you produce. If you try to use force against me, and you are more capable of using force than me, then you can stop me. Even if I don't respect your force as authority, you can still stop me from using the products of your labor. That is a stance-independent hierarchy of power. So, everything comes down to force hierarchies anyway, irrespective of respect. And 'free association" assumes some notion of "freedom" when decisions are made through culturally and neurologically determined inclinations. The assumption of "freedom" in this is already vague and objectionable.
Let me start this by saying I consider myself an anarchist and I regularly communicate with Shawn Wilbur and have communicated with William Gillis in the past. One area where I have always had my questions as to the efficacy of more spontaneous organization is with matters wherein precision is important. I’m thinking about serious medical procedures, for example, or fine and precise machinery. These are areas where standardization is important, and not ensuring precision in these matters can be the difference between life or death. I also think that there is a time and a place for larger scale organizational structures, and especially when you combine that with precision based tasks, ensuring standardization across a broad workforce is important. I am wondering how one might ensure that without some degree of permanence and adherence to strict standards within the decision-making process. Food for thought, and I’d love to hear your response, in whatever form you might be willing to give it.
Strictly anarchic organization can certainly scale up as needed, involve useful standardization, etc. The distinguishing factor in this instance seems to be less spontaneity than decentralization and the removal of the sort of hierarchical, authoritarian structures that can as easily prevent those things as facilitate them. This is one of those places where the separation of authority and expertise is undertaken in defense of real expertise, since the last thing we want from a surgeon is a sense that they are a boss over patients or others in the operating team, rather than a practioner particularly skilled to solve a specific problem - and thus capable of accepting specific responsibilities. When we look closely at the source of so much anarchist confusion on this point - Bakunin's remarks on "the authority of the bootmaker" - what we actually see him propose as "authority" does not seem to be individual opinion so much as access to a particular body of knowledge. We can always ask for a second or third (etc.) opinion, where that seems necessary - and presumably accessing the collected body of expertise becomes more necessary, rather than less, as the stakes of success or failure rise. A Proudhonian account would probably start to address the question of "collective reason" at this point.
Good to get your response here, Shawn! I wonder how, in such a scenario, one might ensure they’re accessing accurate information, or how an institution might ensure the practitioners possess the necessary and correct expertise (and prevent dangerous quackery). Not that the current system doesn’t also have serious problems in this arena, but I’d like to expect better of a future anarchic project.
Nothing guarantees expertise - and nothing could. That's our starting place. We can pile up expert opinions on expert opinions, but sometimes everyone is wrong and there's no immediately available means of fixing it. Again, there are few better, clearer reasons for not conflating expertise and authority. So, if we want to compensate for our ultimate inability to guarantee expertise, we presumably have to surround it with a culture that functions well in the absence of that kind of guarantee. My sense is that the first requirement for that sort of anarchic culture is an embrace of the difficulty, as one of the more practical aspects of embracing the anarchist analysis. We don't kid ourselves about the possibilities - and then we built the mechanisms that let us get the best second, third, fourth, etc. opinions (as needed) as simply and quickly as possible. There's probably an argument in this for anarchist societies finding the means of supporting basic research and scholarship, of making lifelong educational opportunities part of our culture, which probably means stripping education of some of its aura as a privileged activity. We will presumably be engaged in a real remaking of social relations, so perhaps, in the short term, the old anarchist idea of "integral education," which involves a kind of "learning on the job," will come to us quite naturally, given all of the specific problems we are likely to face moving toward a fuller manifestation of anarchy. I think that, in general, the conditions of anarchy will provide incentives for some of this shift. When the obvious authorities have been deposed, our choice is really likely to be between elevating some new form of authority and finishing the job of making anti-authoritarian practice really part of everyday life. Unless we simply get scared and renounce all vigilance, I would expect that the messy business of the transition may simply push us, like it or not, toward something like a consultative network - as the only alternatives seem to involve embracing some kind of majority rule or embracing forms of social chaos that seem unlikely to provide sustainable results. My hope is that as initiative is increasingly taken away from anyone who resembles a politician or capitalist entrepreneur, we'll figure out that we need to know more about how our daily lives actually work, leading us to "put our heads together," which is itself the simplest form of consultative network. The necessary rigor, respect for method, etc., will either emerge from the necessity of not screwing up the important stuff or we probably won't do so well.
I think there’s an inherent human need to work as a unit without subjugation. I’m not sure if your particular setup would work as intended; political systems of don’t. But if any country were to try an approach to anarchy that worked on an industrial scale, it would change the world and I think it would make a lot of people lives far better. I don’t know how possible it is on a large scale, but I really hope there is a way to achieve it successfully. I’d especially wonder how a military and defense would work, or if the military would just work differently from civilian life, as is the case with most countries
Thank you for another wonderfully informative and thoughtful video. I’d love to stand with you and those with a similar vision. People who want to make something beautiful, truly good, and sustainable.
Anarchy might be able to exist, but only in a world with a much much smaller population. It’s naive to think millions of people who live on top of each other would all just get along without a social contract enshrined in law.
it would splinter into factions, clans and families. Due to inefficiencies of smaller scale industries and production, ressources will be limited. these Groups will then compete and war for these ressources. Anarchy never really existed. even if implemented other systems will grow to supplant it. Ingroup, outgroup. those better at violence will exploit those worse skilled.
A social contract and so-called law are just words on paper, when those in power get on top, they rarely abide by them. And it’s just their way to keep the people imprisoned. Anarchy is the only option for even billions because it increases individualism, voluntarism, personal empowerment, and it means that all people are equal there are no involuntary and abusive hierarchies such as government and Lords. It appeals to first principles and the golden rule which is “Do unto others as you would have done unto you”, basically anarchism is the philosophy of do no harm, but take no shit, that is something all people can live by.
@@Nightshift10000Let me put this into Perspective of how INCREDIBLY FRAGILE, are groups in general, political, Non-political, pro-state, Anti-State TO Fear, Close-mindedness and Pluralistic Ignorance combined.. How do you think North Korea, a Dictatorship where more than half the population are soldiers and suffer, won't already overthrow him? Because they don't know between each other who supports Kim Jong Un and who pretends to support him. If they risked it, were they in a truly loyal to Kim Jong Un society, which they are not, they would die. If they risked it, were they in a society that doesn't support Kim Jong Un, they would also die because they would peer pressure themselves into killing the non-loyalists, thinking they are surrounded by loyalists, which they are not. Should they risk it, and every individual knows what everyone wants, they could easily overthrow him. Seriously. Those issues will plague societies regardless of ideology unless they are highlighted in role of Politics. Which just means the State can also get reformed to fix this issue.
I love how all other political parties are always arguing and aggressively defending their views, while anarchists here in comment sections and articles are all just like: “I wish to discuss the ramifications of anarchy and human nature. Let us debate.”
I am a french 45 yo dude living closed to Spain of Durruti, and I am part of the "CNT" there, anacho-syndicate where we yet fought each other many times ( with words only of course ! ) about that "democratic" question ; To me, it's absolutely crystal clear obvious : In no way democracy has anything related to @narchism... Whatever it is direct or not democracy, it is still question of a vote for which the bigger number will... Rule. People really in love with the pure concept of Anarchism like me do not and will never vote : They may associate with other people, talk to them, listen to them, act with them... And flee them if they are in process of voting. As soon as one is using the vote, one makes happening a first element of Power between present persons : Are your ideas, or someone's else, worthing less if less shared ? I don't think so, and I often think the exact opposite in such a society rotten by private property, that one being split in a pyramidal fractal way, to ensure each above layer step is forcing each below layer step for ...ever. That they call the "order". I think you can only accept to resign your ideas decently because either you changed of opinion, or because you're legitimately affraid of the number, affraid of what it can do to you. Many far-right electors in my country do not really even have far-right ideas, but they just bend to their local bosses, fathers, husbands, who ensure to give opportunities only to submissive people around them... In my syndicate, I think most of the people who do not think like me just want to attract more youth, more depolitized people, and for such ones, direct vote is yet ...A thing, u know ? While consensus seems so "abstract" to most of them ...In the end, direct democracy is like an "Overton windows" dedicated to split anarchists movements. The day the CNT will allow the vote during general assemblies, I'll quit them for more autonomous groups. Still, seeking Anarchism is exactly what should bring any of us, including them, to absolutely avoid to do that, "to vote". If we're not agree, either we have to take more time to decide together, or we'll be struggling against each other in action, but to let the number winning before even starting the fight, is always making the Anarchism loosing the battle in the benefit of the static constraint forces applied by people hidden behind numbers, and without even having equal wills on the same questions ( sometimes just making allies for various questions while some of these questions could be really more important to some of the left minorities by that process : In the end, that process pushes to create wider and deeper social divisions and bitter resentments )
This "chaotic" decision system you propose seems deeply immoral. I don't think anyone should be able to try to repair a sewage system without seeking permission from the people who that sewage system services. What if they are more convinced of their competence than is reasonable, and flood my home with sewage? What if I tell them that I am concerned about this, and they tell me that they think my concerns are unfounded, and proceed to take actions that flood my home? I understand your idea that 'consensus' is a bad mechanism for making decisions. It seems bad that everyone in society should have a veto on every decision. But to claim that no one needs permission to do anything? Even things that might ruin my life or kill me? That is a denial of my most fundamental rights.
Generally the idea i agree with is that everyone whom a decision affects should agree on the correct course of action (or agree on a compromise or a vote if necessary)
You are very much correct that the chaotic system that anarchists want adopted is certainly worse than what we currently have. Not only would it be more time consuming to deal with each issue without centralized structures, but people would be doing things with no regulations leading to wildly different outcomes that would negatively impact all involved. An example of this would be to go to countries or cities with little regulatory oversight and see what their infrastructure looks like. Spoiler, it is terrible.
@@brandonmercado8438 imagine trying to build a militia/army when the people in that said country hates authority. The Invading nation will have a very easy time against unorganized force
passively waiting and hoping that something gets fixed instead of taking initiative yourself never helps. the answer to a problem shouldn't be to just wait around and hope things turn out okay in the end.
@@sillyspiderYes, but we cannot reasonably apply that attitude to every situation. For one, expecting every individual to either be educated on nigh every societal issue that effects them to a degree where they can fix it is an extreme and unrealistic demand, and although you could argue that an individual could instead seek out expertise to handle such functions for them, this demands time and effort from the individual, far more than may be reasonable. Additionally, this doesn’t resolve the core issue. If there is a sewer system and a 60% majority believe it does not need renovation, while 40% minority do, how is that resolved effectively? Perhaps another sewer system could be made, but not only is that an unfeasible solution to all issues like this, and often impossible, but even deciding WHO needs the new system is rather difficult. As anarchists, rules would not be bound by authority, so the only real consequences may be mob rule (which has historically been terrible for minorities such as the queer and people of color, as well as generally). Would it even be justifiable in an anarchic society to use force and deter the 40% sewer renovators, or hunt them down after the fact? Would that not be a form of authority, even if transient? If one defines authority as more of a demeaning , constant relationship but still allows for temporary rules or leaders in crisis, that seems to go against certain anarchic principles and leads to a sort of Cincinnatus problem, where there is little guarantee of such authorities loosening their grip on the community after the fact. Nevermind things like rocket science and surgery, which demand national standards and practices at the moment due to their immense risk and need of precision. I actually am empathetic to anarchism and do agree with some of its takes on authority and how ideologies (spooks) can control us, but I am unsure whether a society that abolishes ALL hierarchy is feasible or stable, especially in the face of alternatives and outside factors. It seems a bit naive, or at least optimistic to expect a society that seems to handwave issues by arguing for the general goodness inside man and pointing to instances of community cooperation. At the very least it reminds me of libertarianism and their views on how unchecked capitalism would be “totally great” because the market forces involved would result in speedy, beneficial deals for citizens. If I have misrepresented anything, please tell me, however. I really like anarchism conceptually and if I am incorrect I’d like to see how and why!
But how is all the advanced technology required to create a solar punk world going to be made in a anarchic world? Things like solar panels, wind turbines and batteries are complicated to make and require a variety of resources that most likely cannot be sourced completely local anywhere on earth.
@TheKillbot555 I believe this is included in their freedom of association with those of similar wills. Specifically those who are interesting in this tech will work with others to make it happen. Still listening to the video, but I find the expectation of individual volition and cooperation far to optimistic.
Thank you for creating another insightful video! I go through your videos ever so often when I get the chance! It's crucial to have open discussions about complex topics like anarchism and the challenges it faces. I appreciate your thorough exploration of the subject! I do have some questions however, that I feel are major concerns with Anarchism that I wasn’t able to come up with a satisfactory solution to Please note that though I have seen the video thoroughly, in my ADHD and short attention span, I may have missed some important points that may address my questions, and in that situation I am very sorry for the trouble 1. Propogation of Innumerable Complex Systems: We overcome a great deal of problems with basic Anarchism by implementing complex systems and processes. These processes come about through deep discussion and understanding by specialized and dedicated individuals, built up over time through trial and error. How does Anarchism ensure that these systems and structures are conveyed and informed and built upon ‘across the board’? Are spaces of encounter enough? 2. Security and Defense: As long as there are resources to be had, there are going to be extremely large scale efforts to secure those resources. Right off the bat, I can think of countries like China and Russia unleashing offensives on innocent countries in order to take them for themselves under authoritarian rule. At small scales, especially with modern technology, disconnected or dispersed militias prove ultimately ineffective to seamlessly coordinated large scale logistics and concentrated assaults by large armies with hierarchical command. What strategies does anarchism propose for providing collective security and defense against external threats without resorting to hierarchical structures or centralized authority? 3. External Relations: This is connected to the previous question, but also brings about other concerns. How would anarchist societies navigate complex international relations and establish diplomatic relations with non-anarchist entities operating within hierarchical systems? 4. Social Cohesion and Cohabitation: How do anarchist communities address conflicts and disputes within diverse communities and maintain social cohesion and solidarity over time? What measures are in place to ensure the long-term stability, resilience, and adaptability of anarchist societies in the face of internal and external challenges, changing circumstances, or unforeseen events? How does anarchism ensure its continuity over time, particularly in light of potential external challenges such as opposing hierarchical systems or aggressive state actors seeking to undermine anarchic principles? Additionally, how does anarchism address internal conflicts and disagreements within communities, ensuring that divergent views and interests do not lead to fragmentation or the erosion of collective solidarity? 5. Crisis Response and Disaster Management: How do anarchist communities coordinate responses to emergencies, natural disasters, or public health crises without relying on centralized authority or top-down command structures? Surely the lack of clearly defined and centralized coordination will bring about uncontrolled chaos and disruption, that would lead to greater losses, no? 6. Large-Scale Efforts: Without authority or hierarchy, and the freedom of participation, how can large scale efforts be carried out without disruption from internal or external influences? How can useful and even necessary amenities such as Hospitals function with need for extremely diverse and difficult to acquire resources and tools, that are themselves difficult and ‘expensive’ to produce and research? 7. Education-adverse Participants: There has been a significant portion of the world that has stuck strongly towards stubbornness and avoidance of educational opportunities or ‘imposing’ of norms, often resulting in disruptive behaviors and even worsening outcomes despite best intentions by these individuals. The likes of Covid-19 have shown this in catastrophic effect. How do we ensure that an anarchical society without hierarchies are able to deal with, and not be limited and ‘ruined’ by the influences of people who involve themselves but lack the proper acceptance or understanding of education, norms or consensus? I'd love to hear your thoughts on these important questions and how you believe anarchism can address these challenges effectively. Keep up the great work! May humanity progress towards the best possible future, with progress towards the systems/circumstances that best enable us all to thrive and live our best possible lives, especially with regard to further future progress, happiness, satisfaction, and prosperity. Whatever that may be
I will never tire of reading the comments under your channel, it fills me with a. um... i dont know how to word it.... a less naive optimism? a radical optimism.. its invigorating to see first-ish hand as people let themselves be challenged by that top shelf, Grade A, anarchic utopianism you bring to the square dance. or Table, wherever we're ploppin down the fresh and anarchic.
And it doesn't even properly adress how communication would work between Communes.. Commune sharing info in a chain reaction with communes? Not trustworthy at all as a Commune always has the choice of not spreading it out or spreading it out with incorrect information. Crime Prevention and Solution by Intermediation that won't even get proper Evidence due to non-existing criteria for proof and only through Testimony? Not any better.
Great job! Very well thought out! Very well written. I'm already a fellow traveler, and I very much enjoyed your shaping of concepts. Well done, my friend, keep it up!!
This video is pretty great. Most anarchists ive interacted with have a lovely tendency to either not know what theyre talking about, or have no interest in lending their expertise outside of linking me to a book or 60 page essay. Regardless, I've educated myself about it and what you've said here aligns pretty well with what I've been able to learn on my own. Do I call myself an anarchist or agree wholeheartedly with anarchist values? No. But I do consider anarchists valuable allies in achieving widespread liberation. Personally I agree with the end goal of anarchism, I just am more convinced by a different way to achieve it (IE a transitory period utilizing socialism as an economic policy to alleviate the burdens of material conditions rather than transitioning directly from capitalism to decentralized mutual aid.) Side note, but I think it's incredibly important to begin practicing anarchism within your interpersonal relationships. Not just friends, but family too. There is no reason why you should be subordinate to someone else, especially within an interpersonal relationship.
Thank you for yet another insightful and inspiring video. Disregard the willfully ignorant smart alecks who 1) have never even watched any of your videos let alone read any anarchist books and 2) feel threatened by even the theoretical dismantlement of a system they benefit from upholding at the expense of everyone else
thank you for this one. i've been wanting to find some clarifications like these for quite a while. i feel a very strong practical urge to do some "prefiguration". living as a permanent "tourist" who has fled their own country without any special status, having encountered various problems with employment, housing, food, medicine, and just a right to stay in some country - i really feel a need for people in difficult situations to cooperate and solve such issues collectively. and of course, why limit ourselves to these problems only, there are many reasons for many people to cooperate. but damn, my survival kinda depends on it now)))
The absolute best anarchist RUclipsr is Beau of the Fifth Column. He is literally the modern-day Kropotkin, and he's made his messaging as accessible as possible. He never uses the word "anarchy," avoids using words associated with theory, and deliberately appeals to those who feel spurned by politicians and politics. He focuses on analyzing politics through an ancom lens, and also talks about the importance of ancom-style direct action. He's also the single best political analyst on the platform, drawing on years of experience as a gonzo journalist, military adjacent background, understanding of realpolitik, and contacts all throughout the government.
Beaaauuuutifully made thank you Andrew, so much fresh vocabulary! On that note, I appreciate consesus as a helpful pointer towards the governance model you described, and am left thinking wondering around the distinction between consensus and consent. Coming from a lens of free enterprise (legally incorporated) design where we operate with holacratic/sociocratic structures and processes. Am compelled to say I feel we'd get along! Pura vida :)
Genuinely interesting video, As a socialist I never really got a good introduction to the core principle of anarchism and any discussion with peers would either have a poor view or some snarky comment. Whilst I may disagree with some of the ideas put forth I did appreciate this video as the only anarchists I spoke to have told me to 'read theory' - which is a brilliant way to get people to engage with your ideas as a layman, or have them not explain concepts and lore dump theory without context. The way you described the library of things helps me actually visualise how this may work. thank you
Thank you for this great and informative video, i do have a few questions after discussing this at length with my firends where is some of the ideas we came upo with. 1) How does a free association deal with resource scarceity? How is it decided where these resources go? Would this be accompished through consensus to determine which project is of greater importance? What happens to those left out? 2) How does a free association deal with "crime"? Is it up to the individuals around at the time to conduct their own investigations and judge these people on their own or would this be another example of a consultive association acting as an invetsgatory service to determine the truth behind an action the negatively impact another. How would this person be dealt with? I would imagine everyone would be trained in a form of citizans arrest so that every person has the basic capacity for preventing actions against the collective such as using firearms against an active murderer or tackleing and temporarily detaining theives before the consultive association arrives. After that what then? Im assuming rehabilitiation is preffered to incarceration but what about people who simply dont care about the crime they commit or people who only wanted to needed to commit a crime once? What is the deterrant to crime against the collective. Residivisim in rehabilitation systems is low but not zero. 3) How would this society be affected by individual jealosy and greed. If this society operates off of equity that being the idea of everyone getting different things based off of their individual need how would this society resolve these perceived "unfairnesses" 4)Would you Vett people entering this society, including those that align with your views and turning away those who dont share the same ideas of cooperation? 5) How would you deal with sponges and those who wish to live easy and not contribute to the commune? would rehabilitation work or would you let them be.
4:24 All what I learned about anarchy in school was “it means total freedom but it never works out.” There was no further explanation or so called examples.
Strikes me as the main vulnerability too, but you know what, maybe with the Internet and with accumulating evidence of the evils of capitalism and its wars reaching a critical mass of the global population we could reach a near-global consensus in favor of the revolution and then there would be hardly any bad actors left wanting to go back to the old system. Like Marx said in the Mannifesto, the revolution would be enacted by the 'immense majority', meaning hardly any counter-revolutionaries left.
My grandfather was an anarchist in the spanish civil war. He was a poor farmer and in the thirties found a group of like minded individuals that was based on mutual aid. That's how he learned how to read, got essential resources and picked up boxing. When war broke out he was captured in combat and became a POW, where he met my grandma. Cool guy
pt. 2 in the comments
Straight up sounds like a protagonist in a Hemingway story
@@writingsurreal3584 theres waaaaaay more to it
@@writingsurreal3584 if i get 50 likes i will write part two
commenting to get notified
@@Pablo-hq2ni We want part 2!
Thanks for tackling all these 'radical' ideas with thought and measure. It's refreshing to hear people genuinely think about a better way.
My pleasure!
@@Andrewism
A world without rule is at risk of self-destruction.... if there is no one to enforce any rule, then what stops one individual from commiting an atrocity against orders.....
Freedom does not guarantee peace and peace does not guarantee freedom...
So anarchy needs a compromise.... but this compromise comes at the cost of anarchy loosing its meaning and purpose....
What most of us consider Anarchy to be can only exist in an ideal world were everybody can tolerate and trust each other.... realism always kicks in in the end and people fall back to archy.....
@@thequarter2That was always the case. What stops those at the top from commiting any atrocity? Nothing, it's worse now even given the amount of power a single individual can hold and the caste systems isolating them from others.
@@kkounal974 true... as humans, we are complex and our complexity makes it hard for us to unite and agree on one idea...
Hey @@Andrewism ever heard of commonism(with o not u)...
... Here are some sources to start:
Capital redefined
A commonist value theory for liberating life.
Commonist tendencies
Mutual aid beyond communism.
Commonism
A new astetics of the real.
As a burnt-out, tired audhd person, I appreciate so much that you are breaking down these concepts for us in a clear, concise way, with further readings suggested. I can’t do all the reading and studying that I wish right now, but these videos still help me learn and keep me in touch with my interests. The concepts in anarchy make me feel more human and more hopeful than anything else I’ve experienced and I appreciate that you make this videos, I can access different affirming ideas in a way that works for my disabilities
As another burnt-out, tired audhd person, I can really relate to that whole not reading as much as I want to and having to watch videos like these. I used to read audiobooks while doing other stuff but now I do nothing. It really does feel like the hierarchies of today are the only reason we are disordered (Which is a word I like because it's sort of like we oppose the current order) and our conflicts with society's mold are the symptoms, so anarchy gives me a lot of hope too. I hope we both find ways to cope and liberate ourselves even if there is no revolution in our time.
Hope you all feel better. Remember, it’s not the ADHD that slows you down. It’s the burn out. I tell ADHD people all the time- you can read and enjoy studying books just as much as the next person. You’re not dumb. It’s about overcoming burn out and depression. If I told myself, “I have ADHD, so I can’t read,” then I might as well say I can’t read because I’m too dumb.
@@wellesradio ADHD is very often comorbid with dyslexia. Also have you tried reading a book while also having an argument with the author/yourself? I know reading is not passive for anyone, but it is a maze of off-ramps for anyone with ADHD.
{edit} I should have said minefield instead of maze.
For what it's worth.
More interesting == more off-ramps. Better writing == fewer off-ramps.
yes
@@thumper8684 Definitely relate to getting "off-ramped" as you say when reading. Honestly looking into dyslexia I relate pretty well, I just managed it well enough to not notice it was a problem. Story of my life, add that to the list of comorbidities!
53 minutes on anarchy? Oh what a gift.
A'men !I know little about Anarchy & are there any cross section with Libertarianm 🤔
@@SimSetSoPalestineA little? Both oppose authority, but anarchists tend to be left wing and/or communist
@@lilpwnage36what do you mean by "left wing and/or communist", communism is left wing so how could someone not be left wing but be communist
more like what a GRIFT amiright
@@SimSetSoPalestine left libertarianism, yes. Right libertarianism (ancaps) no.
Me: "I dunno about this whole 'Anarchy' business."
10 minutes later: "Wait... wait-wait-wait... there is a distinction between 'Issuing Orders' and 'Giving Instructions'?" Mind = Blown!!
I'm so happy to hear about your learning! Keep it up! 😎
Anarchy is a wonderful idea, yet has a quite a few hardcore weaknesses! These ones do need some consideration before it can ever have a kind of success, I fear.
1. Anarchists I met had often the most judgemental attitudes towards others, 'be part of the culture of be out' and no sense of humour. For me goes: If I can't play in it, I don't want to be part of the revolution. ;)
2.Freedom from state influence is often abused by big corporations or gangs. There's always people who'll consciously try the abuse the system and will exploit weaknesses. 3. This is a sad one, masculinity. The philosophy is too much a mental developed ideology that will only work when we all play along. Get it, anarchy demands playing along to work. Maybe not with authorities, but with the model, and everyone feeling able to judge others for breaking some rule.
I support collaborative anarchy, or even better collaborative forms of regenerative design, as part of looking for a more human organic way to how people already love to organise and according to what nature needs. For if we fail to restore nature, or make space for it, all human squabble about how we should organise is a distraction, unless it seeks to help. For this is the one big indicator: are you seeking to help the bigger whole with your actions?
And yes, democracy is sick and barbaric. It's ritual tribal warfare, with a lot of cheats. Yet how to grow above and beyond? Anarchy? For there is one last huge obstacle: convenience. A supermarket offers convenience. Run my own gardens, fruit orchard and have weekly meetings to make it work is just way too much fuzz. Nobody wants fuzz, and most are also caught in the abusive lie, that we don't have time for this, especially those caught in bullshit jobs.
And at the same time, I love this channel, and its search for answers to huge social questions.
Yeah a warlord coming into your land and pointing a gun at you is just "giving instructions"
@@KootFlorisanarchism is when no grocery stores
@@Ben-jj4pl as a solution or as the problem?
The necessity of hierarchy have been so ingrained on all of us, that it is so difficult for people to imagine a world without it. Every time I talk to people about this, they say "But then nothing will get done!". We are so used to having other people tell us what to do, that we cannot imagine a world without someone leading us. I think that the problem is that having a leader actually comforts a lot of people, because it means they do not have to take responsibility for their actions in particular or for the state of the world in general. I think that is why hierarchical structures appeal to people that are not leaders themselves.
My gut instinct is kind of the opposite of "nothing will get done!". I think "nobody will get paid!" People are often very willing to do work they see needs done, and much less willing to ask for some form of compensation.
It's something that Daniel Baryon (Anark) calls hierarchical realism
Are those all the kind of people who have been socialized to do nothing but work and binge watch garbage? Have they never met people with hobbies or causes? Nothing will get done? These are people who have never been to a makerspace or volunteered at a shelter or a food bank or taken their kids to a neighbourhood play group- I know a ton of people who "Get more done" outside the realm of paid labour than inside it. And none of them need anyone to tell them what to do. They see a thing, and they do it.
@@FunkyLittlePoptartwhat about people who cant get stuff done such as the disabled, elderly, children, etc.? Sure, theres no guarantee they get taken care of in current societies, but I'm still concerned about their chances in an anarchy.
I agree. Before I was in my current job I thought management and bosses were useless. But now being in that position I’ve realized that most people haven’t been taught how to lead themselves and be self directed. It would take a whole re-education for most people because everyone grows up without the responsibility of thinking for themselves because of our school system. I didn’t realize how deep that went for a long time because i was homeschooled. I think under the current mindset a boss is necessary, but I think mindsets could be changed
thank you for the language around expertise. for years ive been saying "deferring is not the same as obeying" to describe the difference between taking direction from someone who has important skills or knowledge versus going along with an authority's demands.
this is a much more concise way to describe it. we are forever in your debt. thank you.
@@echitester 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾✨ EXACTLY!!
It is so sad to me how much anxiety I and many people feel at the idea of "not knowing what to do" in an anarchic system. We are trained to look to an authority for guidance and permission before acting. The idea of a group of people going to fix a sewer without permission or central planning blew my mind. I am a teacher and in my classroom I have seen my students follow their impulses to solve problems. I hate how many times a day I stop students from doing so. I even stop them from helping each other. I have so much pressure to fit all that they need to learn into the school day and I don't have time for five kids to all dive to collect one student's fallen papers. But it's awful. I ask myself "how would the people in an anarchic society know what to do each day and what needs to get done?" But I know even within myself that I feel impulses to do things a certain way, like organize my class a certain way, but I'm constantly looking over my shoulder, checking in with my superiors, making sure I'm doing it the Right Way. I have lost the ability to trust my own judgement and I fear that my job is only to perpetuate the cycle to the next generation.
Worse yet, many treat the absence of permission from authority or central planning as the absence of organisation or planning in general. They treat hierarchy as synonymous with society. It's unfortunate, and your observation of your role as a teacher under the current system rings true, but there's a vibrant history of anarchism and education that I intend to explore soon. Stay tuned!
If we're just talking about what people would do in a civil engineering sense, there could be some natural turnover process like for most production work. Even if people are discouraged from forming a chain of command, there would at least have to be some sort of tracking for what work was or wasn't done to avoid duplicate or needlessly destructive work. Someone could literally compile a list of what was done and hand that over to whoever comes by next. Intuitive problem solving on your own will always be a thing unless you just need someone to hold your hand through a job due to a lack of competency in that specific job, but it wouldn't be that safe for people to just walk up out of nowhere and just start doing maintenance on something like a plane or train with no relevant context 100% of the time.
Most workers, from what I've noticed, are capable of huddling together and deciding who can take care of what, but there's also less that could possibly lost in translation in terms of what does or doesn't actually need to be done when at least one person is specifically tasked to gather that information so that it can be dispersed the same way it was received. If I use my PTO to come in later for a work day, it's much more effective for me to just ask the floor lead what the status of the shop is instead of talking to 5 different people all focused on their specific task. That floor lead could still be out on the floor working as well if we absolutely can't have a leader of any sort, but I'm naturally going to go to them first since they will objectively know more than me in that moment about what tasks they were left with as the person with the role of information gathering that day.
Some people may not even want that role as well. I personally know that all I feel like doing at work is my job and clocking out at the end of the day. I'll gladly stand aside and wait for whatever the group feels like doing because I'm virtually on autopilot when I show up to work.
@@normandy2501 A floor lead doesn't need to have authority in order to keep track of what's going on. A group of people can recognize "Oh, Jim always seems to know what everyone is doing, hey thanks Jim". And Jim can be like "Yeah, I can do a better job of that if you want; come tell me when you start a task, and I won't have to run around as much."
Honestly I think anarchy is already in use way more than people seem to think. What work people do at their jobs is a blend between what they're ordered to do, and the things they alone recognize need done and then put in the effort to make happen. At my workplace at least there's plenty of spontaneous stuff-doing followed by "oh hey, thanks for doing that, it made a big difference". Businesses seek out employees who can set their own goals and take initiative on stuff ("spearhead"). The main non-anarchic thing is that of course, the benefits of this work are distributed by those in charge. But even then -- not all businesses run on tightly controlled, top-down budgets as we seem to imagine. Small businesses are improvisational.
Also, there are people who go around voluntarily repairing public drinking fountains or even highway signs. But that kind of anarchy is not common.
@@normandy2501 Having a central contact for floor related info is just delegation, it doesn't become hierarchist until that floor lead gets followers, bigger awards, and a bigger vote on who should have his role. A delegate that can be easily replaced is anarchist, a delegate that cannot be easily replaced is hierarchist.
That's the crux of it. We _evolved_ to collaborate and work together, the instincts your children show are integral to our humanity.
Yet they are instincts that the owning class needs trained out of people, if they are to continue to rule. We are all far more brainwashed and indoctrinated into dependence on authorities than we think, and it has beggared both our imaginations, and our collective confidence in our own skills and problem-solving capacities.
Oh my god Andrew. I've been studying anarchism and engaging in anarchist projects for close to two decades now, and still you've taught me something new here. You've made some space for me to reevaluate some of my own ways of thinking. Well done and thank you!
I'm pretty sure that this isn't what was meant (since you do talk about intentional organizing), but the repeated emphasis on things being "organic" felt reminiscent of how some activists will have a romantic ideal of movements developing spontaneously and thus neglect to put in the long-term, methodical work of active organizing that's necessary for movements to not just fizzle out or be co-opted.
Regardless, I enjoyed the video and your perspective, as always.
Yeah, it feels like this side of the theory desperately needs to be coupled with AnRel's remarks that activities that don't get us closer to The Goal (liberation of all, or whatever you want to call it) aren't the right Direct Action, taking 3 steps forward and 3 steps back isn't the right Direct Action, stagnating politically isn't the right Direct Action etc.
I thought I had a pretty good grasp on Anarchist thought until I watched this video. Now I realize I have so much more to learn.
Thank you for your work and voice!
i found this channel after someone posted a comment that Aaron Bushnell made on a Reddit thread naming this channel as one very educational source that he loved and recommended. i’ve fallen in love with this content, because it has given me the hope that the world will be brighter one day. the seeds of revolution have been sowed, we will not be crushed. long live the resistance ✊
I also found Andrewism through Aaron Bushnell ❤
I'm sad Aaron is gone, but I am happy you found this channel because of Aaron.
I am also here because of Aaron. May he rest in peace and power. Ive been a longtime anarchist. I have complex feelings about everything happening and that has happened over the last few months, but am happy to be in good company with Aaron and Andrew and many others.
I've been here for a bit longer than that, but this is super sweet to hear that Aaron brought you here.
I also recommend Zoe Baker and Anark. They are also anarchist youtubers
@@jessica_s9651 i did find Anark when his videos came up in my recommended! i will absolutely look into Zoe Baker as well though :) thank you for the recommendation
As I get older I find myself moving closer and closer to an Anarchic need.
I love that you used the word need, cause that's how I've been feeling as I age
Interesting. I was an anarchist as a child, now I want to restore the monarchy.
A world without rule is at risk of self-destruction.... if there is no one to enforce any rule, then what stops one individual from commiting an atrocity against orders.....
Freedom does not guarantee peace and peace does not guarantee freedom...
So anarchy needs a compromise.... but this compromise comes at the cost of anarchy loosing its meaning and purpose....
What most of us consider Anarchy to be can only exist in an ideal world were everybody can tolerate and trust each other.... realism always kicks in in the end and people fall back to archy.....
@@thequarter2 The threat of retaliation usually is what stops them. Same reason we don't use atomic bombs. We could use them technically but it would also likely be the last time we use them haha!
@@ReapingTheHarvestjust curious, why?
Interesting video. I have one slightly pedantic point and I hope I don't come across as aggressive. You claim at 23:00 that "early in his politics anarchist Errico Malatesta was in favour of majority voting within anarchist organisations when there was no consensus. Yet he still conceded that decisions should only be binding on those who favour them. Later on he would reject the rule of the majority entirely."
I'm not aware of any evidence to support this interpretation. In the quote you cite Malatesta is just making a point he'd been making since he became an anarchist and which was just a standard position among anarchists within the 1st international and beyond: anarchism is against all forms of government, including democractic government/majority rule, and advocates free association. Italian anarchism emerged within the revolutionary republican movement and so was full of people who had initially been supporters of a democratic republic but now rejected it in favour of anarchy. So Malatesta rejected majority rule when he abandoned republicanism and became an anarchist at the age of 17/18.
Malatesta consistently advocates the same position on anarchist decision-making over and over again: unanimous agreement/majority voting + decisions are only binding for those who vote in favour of them + free association. In 1884, when he was 31, he wrote, "in practice one would do what one could; everything is done to reach unanimity, and when this is impossible, one would vote and do what the majority wanted, or else put the decision in the hands of a third party who would act as arbitrator, respecting the inviolability of the principles of equality and justice which the society is based on." (Malatesta 1884) I wouldn't call this early in his politics.
Elsewhere he clarified that he advocated majority voting under two circumstances. He explained in 1907 in response to anarchists who rejected all forms of voting: "the vote used to record opinions certainly has nothing anti-anarchist about it, just as the vote is not anti-anarchist when it is only a practical and freely accepted means to resolve practical issues that do not allow for multiple solutions at the same time, and when the minority is not obliged to submit to the majority, if this does not suit or please them" (Malatesta 2023, 258-9). In other words, majority voting as polling and as decision-making when one decision must be made and multiple solutions cannot co-exist eg if a person should be made editor of a newspaper or not. He did not regard either form of majority voting as a form of majority rule providing it occurs within a free association and does not consist of relations of domination.
Compare the following quotes:
1897: "If a railroad, for instance, were under consideration, there would be a thousand questions as to the line of the road, the grade, the material, the type of the engines, the location of the stations, etc., etc., and opinions on all these subjects would change from day to day, but if we wish to finish the railroad we certainly cannot go on changing everything from day to day, and if it is impossible to exactly suit everybody, it is certainly better to suit the greatest possible number; always, of course, with the understanding that the minority has all possible opportunity to advocate its ideas, to afford them all possible facilities and materials to experiment, to demonstrate, and to try to become a majority. So in all matters not amenable to several solutions running simultaneously, or where differences of opinion are not so great as to make it worthwhile parting company, with each faction doing as it will, or where the duty of solidarity imposes unity, it is reasonable, fair, and necessary for the minority to defer to the majority. But the submission of the minority must be the effect of free will determined by a consciousness of necessity, must never be made a principle, a law, which must, therefore, be applied in all cases, even when there is no necessity for it. And just here is the difference between Anarchy and any kind of government" (Malatesta 2016, 18-19).
1927: "Certainly anarchists recognise that where life is lived in common it is often necessary for the minority to come to accept the opinion of the majority. When there is an obvious need or usefulness in doing something and, to do it requires the agreement of all, the few should feel the need to adapt to the wishes of the many. And usually, in the interests of living peacefully together and under conditions of equality, it is necessary for everyone to be motivated by a spirit of concord, tolerance and compromise. But such adaptation on the one hand by one group must on the other be reciprocal, voluntary and must stem from an awareness of need and from goodwill to prevent the running of social affairs from being paralysed by obstinacy. It cannot be imposed as a principle and statutory norm. This is an ideal which, perhaps, in daily life in general, is difficult to attain in entirety, but it is a fact that in every human grouping anarchy is that much nearer where agreement between majority and minority is free and spontaneous and exempt from any imposition that does not derive from the natural order of things." (Malatesta 2014, 488).
Notice that the points are exactly the same and expressed in almost the same words. This includes the position you emphasize when citing the quote from his platformism critique: "the submission of the minority must be the effect of free will determined by a consciousness of necessity, must never be made a principle, a law, which must, therefore, be applied in all cases, even when there is no necessity for it."
Malatesta, Errico. 1884. Between Peasants.
Malatesta, Errico. 2014. The Method of Freedom: An Errico Malatesta Reader. Edited by Davide Turcato. Oakland, CA: AK Press.
Malatesta, Errico. 2016. A Long and Patient Work: The Anarchist Socialism of L’Agitazione 1897-1898. Edited by Davide Turcato. Chico, CA: AK Press.
Malatesta, Errico. 2023. The Armed Strike: The Long London Exile of 1900-1913. Edited by Davide Turcato. Chico, CA: AK Press.
You wrote a whole essay with a works cited page 😭
No shade, though. I get the point that you're making. I love your videos btw. I also bought and read your book. It helped me better understand the concept of means and ends unity. You do great work :)
Thank you for this contribution, it's definitely appreciated!
I love both your work. @anarchozoe is your personal position the same as Malatesta? I also wonder if free association has limitations where there is large disagreement especially over things like allocation of resources and projects that affect an entire society, etc?
@@sharkythegw7843zoe type of girl to read the terms and agreements, hit decline, and then make a 20 page rebuttal to the terms and agreements
Hey.. just a little thing…
PROCEEDS TO WRITE AN ENTIRE DOCUMENTARY SCRIPT ON THE LITTLE THING
Thank you for your work Andrew, it is truly aspiring. Great timing too with International Worker's Day, and the recent Pro-Palestine protests at American Universities. You all give us all hope, and we can all work together to achieve a better work
Can you talk about how people who inflict serious harm will be able to freely associate without people just deciding to lynch them? Can you talk about how bouncers are different to cops? Can you also talk about how food production, raw materials collection, distribution of food and materials, and water distribution can and or is being made more anarchic?
I am digging all this man. Been an anarchist since I was 15 years old. Still am. WE OUT HERE.
I really really really want to believe in this. But listening to this gave me a 1000 more questions than it answered. And raised some serious concerns. I dont say that from malice but genuine concern and desire to find common ground
Honestly, that is something I love about anarchism. I'm never in full agreement and I am very skeptical of a lot of the concepts I hear about- but pulling thst discomfort, disagreement, and skepticism apart is fascinating. I find even completely outside of ideological anarchism, in a society with a state and everything, anarchist concepts have so much value and that's what motivates me to learn more and explore those differences and questions, rather than finding an ideology that I 100% agree with or anything
As a Marxist, I love your videos; your personal experiences used as examples for well-researched and thought out points that I can never disagree with. A problem I’ve often despised from my camp has been an obsession with beating capitalism at its own game - raving about the explosion of industrial productivity in the USSR for example instead of focusing on what that goal that was done for. A true revolutionary is fueled by love for mankind and I think you embody that completely. When Revolution comes I wish it looks like yours.
And the Caribbean accent is always great to listen to lol
Isn't it natural for Marxists to want to point out how successful socialism irl has been?
@@tankiegirl by being better capitalists?
@@AL-lh2ht By materially improving the lives of people via revolution. Isn't that the point of left politics?
@@tankiegirl Ok, then why not support social democracy? At least social democracy can give the quality of life improvements that ML states have, without the genocides and authoritarianism.
@@RD-oj4jw Read Marx and/or Lenin and you'll find out why Marxists prefer dictatorship of the proletariat over reformist capitalism
We could do it. I really truly believe that it is our fear of the danger of change that holds us back, But We could do it. We've always been able to do it. Stand up, And be true.
Thank you for always being accessible with your videos and always putting in real captions. It means a lot.
Glad it's helpful! Honestly I'm not sure why most scripted RUclipsrs don't just auto upload their script as captions.
@Andrewism you know, i never really thought of that being an option either! 😯
I was going to ask if you had any books I could read about anarchy, but then I looked at your notes and, uh, wow.
What an excellent intro to anarchism, especially appreciate the helpful definition of authority! This video will change some minds.
Ps that section on democracy was illuminating as well
This is wonderful! It helped quell some of my own hesitations about anarchism and explained things in a simple, humble way. Thank you!!
this video is changing my views slightly and my definitions heavily and i actually dont think ill be calling myself pro democracy any longer
great video!
What im having trouble wrapping my head around is how we would deal with problems that cannot be solved by disassociating like what to plant in a specific spot. what if i want to plant corn and you want to plant tomatoes? there is no consensus needed for action, so discussion should lead to consensus. that can still be entirely freely associated, but what if i agreed to plant tomatoes if i could have my corn next year, but when the time comes you disregard that decision? I obviously dont want to force you to abide by a decision you made last years, but i also dont want to be forced to move somewhere that i could have my corn.
I think space might break the ideal of free association sometimes
Okay like literally your next paragraph states that solving something like this could be called consensus. Disregard
If you want to plant corn or tomatoes in your own garden, then do it.
@@normandy2501 dawg ownership wont exist in anarchy, youre a liberal if you think otherweise
A world without rule is at risk of self-destruction.... if there is no one to enforce any rule, then what stops one individual from commiting an atrocity against orders.....
Freedom does not guarantee peace and peace does not guarantee freedom...
So anarchy needs a compromise.... but this compromise comes at the cost of anarchy loosing its meaning and purpose....
What most of us consider Anarchy to be can only exist in an ideal world were everybody can tolerate and trust each other.... realism always kicks in in the end and people fall back to archy.....
I just finished rewatching your degrowth video when i saw this upload. What a treat!
The art pieces that you use throughout the whole video are so beautiful and perfectly in theme with the topics discussed wow
This video could also be titled "Anarchy: what it actually is and how to build it"
Too many people think Anarchy is The Joker (TM) or Zaheer from the worst Avatar series, and that therefore, as a political ideology, should be mocked and dismissed, while clinging to the exploitative ways of capital and its enslaving nature.
I hope your vid changes many minds, and helps people break out of the neo-liberal mind prison.
Anarchy most certainly should be mocked and dismissed. It has no feasible way of actually developing in the world and even less of a chance of remaining on any large scale. It is a pipe dream at best for those who want to be their own boss while disregarding everyone else.
@brandonmercado8438
Democacy should be mocked and dismissed. The "great image" of the large-scale Society (Capital S) you're touting builds itself on the backs of the proletarians (capitalism), patriarchy, settler-colonialism, needless destruction of environments and the animals living there, etc. etc. etc.
Just when I’ve been realizing that being at my painfully centrist college has almost deradicalized me by just not having other anarchists there, you come out with this banger, perfect timing (they do have a pro-Palestine movement though but it’s very small and outnumbered and forced by the college to be more moderate than it is, I do give them a ton of credit for existing here though)
I just hope they're not pro-Terrorist... there's a fine line to be tread here.
@@N1ghthavvk "i just hope the south african and algerian resistance arent pro terrorist"
"i just hope the slaves revolting chattel slavery dont cross my liberal sensibilities"
@@af8828 I'm sorry, but were you actually there, on the ground in Gaza? I am basing my opinion on the facts I've been told by people who actually experienced what happened.
And consequently there's only one side that I can reasonably empathize with: The civilian population victimized by both of their respective rulers.
Anything else and you're falling for propaganda and lies by people who like to choose their truths.
Hamas and Netanyahu (rightwing Israeli politics) have to go, if there's to be lasting peace.
I recommend "Tom David Frey" here on YT, if you'd like to have some insight into ordinary perspectives (you don't need to understand the language - just watch).
@@N1ghthavvk people who experienced which event? Over 120 years of colonialism, multiple mass expulsions and 75 years of apartheid? Ohh or do you mean the literal extreme-right settlers (keyword: settlers, not civilians) squatting on kibbutzes attained illegally by violation of international law and immense violence, who were peft unprotected? Settlers who actively serve in the colonial occupation force? Riight.
@@N1ghthavvk you may have trouble defining terrorism without it including the united states, israel, and most other "first-world" nations; it is more useful to look at this conflict as oppression and resistance. we dont have to like the full set of values the resistance holds as individuals or as an organization, we just have to acknowledge that they are the ones resisting the oppressive power. when the oppression ends, we can address the problematic values that arise afterwards, but today our focus must remain on the oppression.
Andrew, your videos are a great breath of fresh air, even since I first stumbled upon them a few years ago. Really great anarchist content that RUclips sorely was missing. And the videos have only gotten better; these two recent videos are among your best :)
Religion as a topic is missing. Yet religion has been a huge tool to exert power over others (men over women, clergy over flock).
God above man
Man above woman
Adult above child
Human above animal.
Except we are all animals except god who isn't real.
I do think there’s more nuance here depending on how you define religion. Spiritual beliefs and practices have been some of the strongest ways of holding communities together, and resisting the continuous assault of capitalism. Obviously top down hierarchical religion that exerts control and limits freedom are bad.
Yea it was crazy when the Crusades happened and all the men stayed home cooking food and raising the kids and the women went to die in a foreign land, right?
@@Scolecite deliberately misunderstanding my point doesn’t look good on you.
@@PhantasmalBlast I’m not aware of any current religions that work without hierarchy of some form. Religion inevitably turns into a tool to abuse and gain power over people.
Thank you so much for spreading the word of libertarian communism! Many people, even "anarchists" seem to believe that anarchy=chaos, but the truth is, anarchy is the only realistic - and historically successful - way to achieve the abolishment of oppression, in all its forms.
Not all anarchisms are communism: There are mutualist tendencies, neo-Proudhonian anarchism prominent among them.
To box the whole of "anarchism" into one single category you like (libertarian communism) is to ignore other tendencies that don't wish to belong to the category, and to monopolize term "anarchism."
As for the boogeyman of chaos, the way you're using that word is so clearly a scare-tactic that I couldn't help myself. You're using 'chaos' the way governmentalists use largely that same word to describe anarchy.
Anarchy can certainly be thought as a positive non-pejorative chaos.
By putting anarchists who are sympathetic to chaotic forms of organization in scare quotes, you're implying that insurrectionist anarchists aren't anarchists, and neither is the anarchist writer Peter Gelderloos. His book, Worshipping Power, has a chapter dedicated to the idea that that anarchists challenge people to view chaotic ways of organizing and chaotic ways of decision-making as not inherently pejorative.
"The reasoning is simple. Hierarchical societies are easier to control, and hierarchies cannot defend themselves from more powerful hierarchies. Officials from a state cannot easily communicate with members of a society in which decisions are made in open assemblies, or societies with chaotic rather than unitary decision-making.
As an important aside, I would challenge the reader to accept chaotic organization as a superior form, even though we are usually only presented with a pejorative vision of chaos. In unitary decision-making, an entire polity must abide by a single decision, or there must be a clear hierarchy to govern and rank the decisions made at different levels, whether in a bureaucratic or federalistic system. All governments, from fascist dictatorships to direct formal democracies, share the principle of unitary decision-making and disseminate the assumptions on which such decision-making is based. Chaotic decision-making fosters the recognition that society can function spontaneously as a decentralized network, permits conflict as a healthy force in our lives, encourages a multiplicity of decision-making spaces pervading all moments of life, well beyond the formal, masculine sphere of the congress or the dictat, and allows different, even conflicting, decisions to be made at different points in the human network, while encouraging a collective consciousness so all decision-makers can maximize their intelligence and accordingly harmonize. Humans have an evolutionarily tested ability to utilize chaotic decision-making at a macro scale, and the only people who dispute this are those who wish to permanently infantilize their compatriots so as to control them by monopolizing decision-making in unitary structures."
* Worshiping Power, Take Me to Your Leader: The Politics of Alien Invasion
@@Grundrisse indeed it is true that i used libertarian communism as a broader term, so thank you for clarifying that! As a person who has been in plenty protests (Greece), it is important to distinguish true, educated nihilists and the such from the uneducated, reactionary teens who just want to mindlessly smash things up; of course violence is important, but unorganised, uncoordinated violence is detrimental to everyone
There's a reason the A is entirely inside the O in the anarchist symbol.
What is to stop a group with more power than you demanding things you can not provide? What happens when that group imposes their will upon you because you do not have the means to defend yourself?
Historically successful? 😂 cite the History then
I could imagine an anarchic system working, but there's a few issues I see that I can't seem to get ... solved. Perhaps somebody has ideas:
* The transition from a globalized economy seems very hard, considering that we rely on specialized goods from parts of the world very far away, especially so if those parts are not yet anarchist too. How do you continue trading with them, when they want money, but an anarchist society doesn't use it? It may still be there, accessible for use if necessary to interact with the other parts of the world, but then...
* How do you prevent bad actors from just taking all or most of the money and fleeing to a capitalist part of the world? The issue with free association is that a reaction to such a "crime" is presumably not immediate and would be too late to prevent the damage to the local society. Maybe somebody would be alerted if it was a heist, but whati f it was just social engineering, where the guardian of the money was tricked into handing it over, and would not expect it back anyways, on promise of some goods being delivered later, for somebody else, who'd only realize it too late? Effectively, you'd require people to do work in very similar "jobs" as before, but you can't prevent people from leaving, in an anarchist society, can you?
* On a similar note, what about bad actors in different contexts? What if conflict escalates? What if a neighbouring empire decides to invade? Presumably the reaction would be too late to prevent entry, and would end in a guerilla warfare, where the attacker will presumably retreat, but only at the cost of way too many lives. This WILL definitely happen to the first bigger experiment. It might not to the next few, when it is established fact that invading would not be profitable, but some national actor will come for the "undefended" and "unrepresented" resources first.
* How do you transition from a "call to arms" utilizing the follower-effect, to a truly anarchist movement? It feels impossible. Media will interview some person, claiming to be able to present the ideas (and there will be people like that, maybe somebody like you with the gift of communication). But such attention will naturally lead to more and more interviews, and more and more power ending up attributed to that person, even against them rejecting it as an anarchist.
* Even in the actual event of an anarchist "region" establishing itself, communication to neighbouring political entities will be strained from the beginning: "What do you mean, you can't guarantee this treaty being upheld? But it's the Genova Convention! You're not a real country! We'll have to send blue-helmed troops to establish order until a new government is elected!" You may argue that this issue could be solved by free association, and I'd believe you, but the other countries wouldn't. You could send some (possibly) constantly changing people to represent the region in supra-national entities, but even if these people were to do their best, and the society as a whole would do their best too, it will be a struggle that I can't imagine anybody winning in the current political situation. No way, any of the main actors would allow an anarchist society to establish itself. It'd be much too unstable in their eyes.
I think we won't see an actual anarchist society experiment succeed in our lifetimes. And I couldn't imagine myself defending it against the big guns. To be completely honest: I'm much too comfortable in my current and very privileged situation to consider radical change "worth it".
I'm open to the small changes, and try to do my best to point any groups I'm a part of into the right direction, but that is all inside a casual athmosphere, where people are willing to listen. It's not inside of the workplace, or politics, where entrenched ideas are the established rule.
I’m in a similar boat. It is clear to me, for many of the reasons you listed, that the establishment of an anarchic society within the current international order is impossible on a large scale. No society or organization exists in a vacuum.
As long as states (or hierarchies in general) exist anywhere, anarchy will never be able to be sustained.
Not going to reply to all of that but to point 2: If a group of people in an anarchist society rounded up all the money in the area and left... what would that do that you think merits a response? they leave with some bags of paper that have no value anymore now that the state that backed that currency isn't in power, and the community that's left has no need of money whatsoever, let alone the money backed by the state that just stopped existing, and they don't need or want the people who obviously very much didn't want to live in that community. So.. cool they escaped to capitalistville, hope they have good, long, and fulfilling lives there.
@@JuniperHatesTwitterlikeHandles Did you completely miss the point about money being necessary in a transition period, to keep up trade with other nations? It is not useless. Sure, you won't have your own money, but you'll need dollars to keep buying oil or whatever else the society might need. Or do you want to regress to the dark ages?
You guys are almost communists already. Read Lenin, Marx and Engels, you'll see something that makes sense to you that's for sure. All these concerns are actually the things they wrote about a lot.
There's a reason anarchist societies don't last long or only last at the largesse of a greater power. If resources are valuable and there's no established power structure to defend or exploit them, someone will figure out a way to do that. The reason that global capitalism is the dominant system is because it outcompeted the other ones, both on merits of function and merits of stomping the other ones out of existence. Not a moral or ethical judgment, but just sort of a historical fact.
I was kind of thinking about this without even knowing it was anarchy. I was thinking, what if instead of states and governments there would be entirely separate entities for different purposes. For example, there might be a ‘government’ for providing education to people of a certain place, they have this goal but are not bound by a higher entity, overlayed with countless other ‘governments’ each with their own goal, interacting but not antagonizing each other. Another might be to defend or provide law to a certain region, but would not interfere with the affairs of any other structure. They wouldn’t have control over everything inside them and you could opt out. Or a completely separate system with the goal of providing food for people. Etc etc etc.
The problem I see with anarchy though is that without rules how would we stop states from forming again? They could simply proclaim their laws and arrest anyone in their borders who don’t agree.
Great video! Greeting from Spain, one of the motherland of anarchism
A world without rule is at risk of self-destruction.... if there is no one to enforce any rule, then what stops one individual from commiting an atrocity against orders.....
Freedom does not guarantee peace and peace does not guarantee freedom...
So anarchy needs a compromise.... but this compromise comes at the cost of anarchy loosing its meaning and purpose....
What most of us consider Anarchy to be can only exist in an ideal world were everybody can tolerate and trust each other.... realism always kicks in in the end and people fall back to archy.....
@@thequarter2 You can't have atrocities without blind obedience. You can have injustices, and bad experiences, but for atrocities you need centralized control.
@@bramvanduijn8086 ignorance exists... if you are not informed or are at risk of being harm, atrocities may occur...
Mass murderers commit atrocities without any control from anyone...
@@thequarter2execpt all of them have reasons for what they did and ways in which it couldve been prevented
@@bramvanduijn8086 dude, I thinks acts of genocide because agreed about the genoicdes
Had to pause at one minute to say….
Wow!! That was an amazing introduction. I could imagine those words being part of a blockbuster movie scene. Well done.
This channel seems to always have a informative perspective thanks for the content!
Hot damn, I've never seen a video on anarchism that's as good as this one. Some of the ideas that you put forward are incredibly complicated, so I'm wondering how we should set about explaining them to people that have absolutely zero knowledge of politics, or that are perhaps even unaware that they're living within a political economy? For me, this is the biggest challenge to anarchists moving forward--Our theories are sublime but the way that we educate people about those theories is not.
This video provides an excellent answer to the question of consensus in anarchy, and it appears that it has been hiding in plain sight all the while. I've come away with a deeper appreciation for free association, thank you!
Excellent video! When you were listing the archic systems at the start, I squealed in delight when I saw democracy on the list since I don't see many anarchists with that viewpoint tbh ☺️ I was also thrilled to see Shawn Wilbur's work discussed in the video since he was a big influence on my anarchism 😎🔥
Keep up the great work, loving your videos so far! 😄
All Power to All People
🏴✊🚩
Then nothing happens, nothing will get done and society will collapse. Also you have no understanding of evolutionary biology.
@@Scolecite eVoLuTiOnArY bIoLoGy
I was an anarchist in my 20s but realized that authority is necessary and important. Moral questions never go away, but systems are like language: we don’t invent them out of nowhere, and we are born into them. Authority and hierarchy are facts of the world. Knowing my place isn’t an imposition, it’s an intelligence and alertness both within and without. In some senses we always live in anarchy. In other senses we never do. Everybody cocreates the state of things at all times.
@@kencat6980 No, anonymous Internet person. I was. I just had life experiences that challenged my ideology. Did you know that your thinking, even about things that are important to you, can change?
🥱🥱
I honestly think stuff like this channel is of much more value than alot of what's emanating from the formal ancom scene at this time, but that ain't difficult tbh. And it's not just the words but the visuals and the music etc.
How do we prevent violence between certain free associations? How do we stop discrimination? What if a group of fascists come together and make a free association with the intent of trying to reinstitute hierarchy and enacts violence on whichever minority they despise? Do we simply hope that another free association of people decide to protect that group? How do we prevent war? I view myself as a libertarian socialist, and I oppose most systems of hierarchy, but I don't know how we make a truly anarchist system resilient to the test of time. Hierarchy may not be natural, but it didn't come from nowhere. Groups of people fought over resources and they formed different groups to organise their fights over such resources and over 1000s of years, those groups built to fight over and control resources eventually formed the systems of hierarchy that we are familiar with today. We might one day succeed in making a horizontal anarchist society. But what would keep it from becoming corrupted? What would stop hierarchy from reinstituting itself? How do we protect minorities from violence/coercion by the majority? I don't know the answers to these questions and my fear is that the answer is that you can't. That hierarchy, domination, violence, and coercion are inevtiable. But I do hope that we can minimize these as much as possible, and I think anarchist teachings are vital to understanding these concepts and teaching us how to analyze systems of hierarchy/how power flows.
very thought provoking and well presented. thank you
You're doing really great work, thank you.
This video has had an effect on me. Looking around at the world, I can't help but feel alone in my thoughts, opinions & values at times, as I watch other ppl constantly fight over perceived differences, submit to the subjugation of their "superiors" & generally continue to feed these systems & ways of life that are to blame for just about all of our societies' shortcomings. I do see signs of change in the world tho. As I listened to your video while at work, I thought of people locally, nationally & abroad who are utilizing mutual aid, creating structures of support & cooperation outside of hierarchical structures & beginning to move in a direction that is away from suppressive, repressive & oppressive powers that govern us. I also see hope in the student protesters going against the powers-that-be in higher education & law enforcement, standing up for ppl around the globe. I hope that I see us move in the direction of the world depicted in this video within my lifetime
To be honest, I found this video quite confusing - got the feeling more of a play with words, rather than a worked out view of the world. Still not sure how this version of "social revolution" would work? Wouldn't some people consciously need to persuade others about their viewpoint to start building "free associations"? And especially, how would you try to "mitigate conflicts in advance", when there isn't a basic agreement even in simpler things (for example, if "democracy" is good or bad - ignoring the classless approach to the question)?
You're not the only one. Semantic tap dancing and only 20 seconds of how to deal with reactionaries and opposing forces. "Organized force" yeah okay, good luck having that with zero authority and this nebulous idea of free association
Thank you once again for another upload 🥰💗
I love your channel, it gives me hope, and I really like your speaking voice.
The fact that you are always willing to learn and be better got my subscription.
I’m not an anarchist but it’s been interesting listening/watching this video. Doesn’t hurt to learn more right?!?
Anarchy is impossible as long as there is a world hegemon.
Hi Andrew! Thankyou so much for all your time and effort into this channel, not only has it articulated many tangled up feelings about society but has given me the resources and confidence to educate others in my community. I really love this video and was wondering if it exists in essay/transcript form. I have friends I want to deliver this information to who would not be able to dedicate an hour to a video but can read an essay! No worries though.
Absolutely fantastic! Very thoughtful review and reflection.
I’m trying, but I kinda can’t 😂. The association of water will allow distribution based on the common good? Maybe. Hard to imagine being much better than now, especially when ‘power’ becomes entrenched, much like now.
Engagement for the engagement god!
As an anarchist, I honestly disagree with a lot of what you say here, but that's what so nice about anarchism at the end of the day. Unlike traditional statist forms of governance, anarchism is very adaptable to the needs of the people. Anarchy will never look the same from place to place, because we all have different and specific needs that we need to adapt Anarchy to. I appreciate your prespective, and although I imagine Anarchism very differently, I think that's just a given with Anarchism. Ask 10 Anarchists what they imagine the ideal Anarchist society to look like, and they will all give different answers. What matters is that however Anarchy looks, people can decide wether they want to participate in that society or not without risking their well-being when they decide not to.
Im so glad i found your channel. This was a really inspiring and thought provoking video. I already consider myself an anarchist (though this is a very recent development), but that talk about democracy was so spot on. I felt extremely uncomfortable even questioning democracy (until you mentioned free association, and i was like ah, ok I'm no longer confused), and after watching, i have to agree that it is time to stop conflating democracy with decision making.
It took a long time since I last saw one of your videos. This one is excellent. I wish there was a video like that in Portuguese. RUclips provides automatic translation for subtitles, but it's not the same thing. I'm gonna share it anyway.
Something I right now think a lot about is this idea that expertise should give you chances to decide certain things - because in a lot of cases expertise currently is mostly bound to existing systems of power. I am lying in hospital right now, and I am very well read in regards to medical knowledge. So well read that in fact I correctly identified my health condition before any doctor did. However, for the simple reason that I do not have a medical degree, I was not listened too. Which in my case has been leading to more and more frustration, because the doctors will go: "Oh, but it also could be this very rare disease." While I am sitting there like: "Yeah, or it is the thing that the blood tests tell us, that secondary symptoms tell us and everything."
do you think your situation is more or less common than someone being completely wrong about such a self-diagnosis? How many people took horse dewormer rather than getting a vaccine?
Wilbur actually talks about this in the context of expertise! I flash a footnote on it on screen but it might be missed. He calls it "authority-effect." Quote:
"Authority-effect: The infamous “authority of the bootmaker,” from Bakunin’s “God and the State,” is probably the most familiar example of an instance where the uneven distribution of expertise, together with the staple nature of the object of expertise, combine to create a condition of quasi-authority, where an expert may be capable of “commanding” a situation, not because they have any right to do so, but because they occupy an advantageous position in society, thanks to the division of labor. We may be forced to take the advice of a specialist, but the source of their power to influence our decision is as much our lack of expertise and whatever exigencies we face as it is their own knowledge and skill. In a medical crisis, a doctor may be able to wield considerable power over patients without medical expertise, while in a time of good health or under circumstances where the patient has medical expertise, that power melts away. Certainly, we don’t bow to bootmakers when we don’t need boots, even if sufficient need on our part may create real power that they can wield. Credentialing systems may create a slightly different sort of authority effect, particularly where they are faulty or corrupt, by increasing the possibility of the false appearance of expertise or by limiting the ability of capable practitioners to meet the needs of others.
Authority-effects are very real, in the sense that the combination of factors can compel obedience to just as great an extent as more formal authority, and they may continue to be a problem even under circumstances where the principle of authority has been rejected. But their ill effects will almost certainly be reduced as we move beyond a social model that treats authority as a foundational principle and learn to engage in anarchistic relations."
Dude literally thinks he is smart then a doctor on matters of health.
so this year I joined a socialist organisation, I'd been working with them a while unofficially but there was an introductory run down of socialist/marxist concepts for newcomers. There was one other person attending aside from the host. Very much this "intellectual Marxist" type. I had never seen them in any active spaces before, so I wondered what kind of work they were involved with. They gave this enormous bibliography of Marxist literature they'd read practically unprompted and spent a lot of the time I was there bending the host's ear. I kept trying to observe what practical application they'd applied this theory to, and had to stop myself from bursting into laughter when they said it "helps [them] win disputes on the internet".
one of the questioned floated to us towards the end of this interview was "what does a socialist society look like to you?"
I have never really seen myself as much of an intellectual, never necessarily had a high value of my own ideas, so I've always focused on what I can see in front of me and what I can change in the moment. I had a rough idea of how horizontal structures work and how interdependent groups with diverse mechanisms work to prop each other up, so this is what I tried to explain.
so this guy laughs at me. And they say: "that sounds like Anarchy!" in this tone that let me know they think I'm an idiot.
Well, after that, I thought: "ok, maybe this Anarchy thing isn't so bad. I should look into that."
This is where I came upon your videos, this one specifically. I've been watching them voraciously. I don't think an ideology has ever made me feel as empowered and really let me know that I have the capacity to understand the needs of both myself and my community. There is so much kindness that it's brought me to tears on more than one occasion, I don't think I even realised how badly I needed to hear these things.
I'm really grateful for this channel and channels like it. Keep it up man.
I don't know, all of this as it often appears to be, seems something that can at best exist in optimal conditions... But systems that base themselves on optimal conditions are bound to remain utopias...
What if conditions aren't Ideal? Or good? Or even decent at best?
For example let us suppose the most banal problem this could run into a military or policing consultive association is very good at what it does, and growing amounts of people grow to like them more and more, One among them is very charismatic, some people, a growing amount of people that deal with their purviews, like to listen to them, to work with them.
People Simply gather and well these guys are good, very good, people that work with them feel growingly more comradery with them.
In time these people come out as fascists and decide that well... You know what, order and discipline don't sound that bad, and, after all, considering that a large amount of the people who deal with weapons and the military are already our Friends... Well... Let's implement order and discipline, who's going to stop us the bakers? The librarians?
Well you might say somewhere someone is going to come and restore anarchy, there's a whole world of anarchists and only One fascist insurgency, right? But this again is a best-case scenario...
What if this isn't the case? What if there are many of these, people have indeed a tendency to *like* giving up their responsibilities to a strongman, it's quite liberating being freed from the burden of responsibility... What of due to technology the amount of gunmen that these consultive Union has been able to reach is continent-sized or more...
Well, but these things have happened in hierarchies too so we are solid...
I mean, perhaps, but I am not sure it's a strong enough defence because It depends on how likely or unlikely these things can happen in either.
And this is the most unimaginative problem that such a system may run into.
This is an awesome video! I personally don’t prescribe to anarchy, or organized anarchy and this video confirmed my belief but it was super informative and clear :)
I'm going to free-associate the use of your home and food. If you don't agree with that, well, you have the "free self-determination" to leave. But wherever you go I will freely follow and use things you produce. If you try to use force against me, and you are more capable of using force than me, then you can stop me. Even if I don't respect your force as authority, you can still stop me from using the products of your labor. That is a stance-independent hierarchy of power. So, everything comes down to force hierarchies anyway, irrespective of respect.
And 'free association" assumes some notion of "freedom" when decisions are made through culturally and neurologically determined inclinations. The assumption of "freedom" in this is already vague and objectionable.
Let me start this by saying I consider myself an anarchist and I regularly communicate with Shawn Wilbur and have communicated with William Gillis in the past.
One area where I have always had my questions as to the efficacy of more spontaneous organization is with matters wherein precision is important. I’m thinking about serious medical procedures, for example, or fine and precise machinery. These are areas where standardization is important, and not ensuring precision in these matters can be the difference between life or death. I also think that there is a time and a place for larger scale organizational structures, and especially when you combine that with precision based tasks, ensuring standardization across a broad workforce is important. I am wondering how one might ensure that without some degree of permanence and adherence to strict standards within the decision-making process. Food for thought, and I’d love to hear your response, in whatever form you might be willing to give it.
Strictly anarchic organization can certainly scale up as needed, involve useful standardization, etc. The distinguishing factor in this instance seems to be less spontaneity than decentralization and the removal of the sort of hierarchical, authoritarian structures that can as easily prevent those things as facilitate them. This is one of those places where the separation of authority and expertise is undertaken in defense of real expertise, since the last thing we want from a surgeon is a sense that they are a boss over patients or others in the operating team, rather than a practioner particularly skilled to solve a specific problem - and thus capable of accepting specific responsibilities. When we look closely at the source of so much anarchist confusion on this point - Bakunin's remarks on "the authority of the bootmaker" - what we actually see him propose as "authority" does not seem to be individual opinion so much as access to a particular body of knowledge. We can always ask for a second or third (etc.) opinion, where that seems necessary - and presumably accessing the collected body of expertise becomes more necessary, rather than less, as the stakes of success or failure rise. A Proudhonian account would probably start to address the question of "collective reason" at this point.
Good to get your response here, Shawn!
I wonder how, in such a scenario, one might ensure they’re accessing accurate information, or how an institution might ensure the practitioners possess the necessary and correct expertise (and prevent dangerous quackery). Not that the current system doesn’t also have serious problems in this arena, but I’d like to expect better of a future anarchic project.
Nothing guarantees expertise - and nothing could. That's our starting place. We can pile up expert opinions on expert opinions, but sometimes everyone is wrong and there's no immediately available means of fixing it. Again, there are few better, clearer reasons for not conflating expertise and authority. So, if we want to compensate for our ultimate inability to guarantee expertise, we presumably have to surround it with a culture that functions well in the absence of that kind of guarantee. My sense is that the first requirement for that sort of anarchic culture is an embrace of the difficulty, as one of the more practical aspects of embracing the anarchist analysis. We don't kid ourselves about the possibilities - and then we built the mechanisms that let us get the best second, third, fourth, etc. opinions (as needed) as simply and quickly as possible. There's probably an argument in this for anarchist societies finding the means of supporting basic research and scholarship, of making lifelong educational opportunities part of our culture, which probably means stripping education of some of its aura as a privileged activity. We will presumably be engaged in a real remaking of social relations, so perhaps, in the short term, the old anarchist idea of "integral education," which involves a kind of "learning on the job," will come to us quite naturally, given all of the specific problems we are likely to face moving toward a fuller manifestation of anarchy.
I think that, in general, the conditions of anarchy will provide incentives for some of this shift. When the obvious authorities have been deposed, our choice is really likely to be between elevating some new form of authority and finishing the job of making anti-authoritarian practice really part of everyday life. Unless we simply get scared and renounce all vigilance, I would expect that the messy business of the transition may simply push us, like it or not, toward something like a consultative network - as the only alternatives seem to involve embracing some kind of majority rule or embracing forms of social chaos that seem unlikely to provide sustainable results. My hope is that as initiative is increasingly taken away from anyone who resembles a politician or capitalist entrepreneur, we'll figure out that we need to know more about how our daily lives actually work, leading us to "put our heads together," which is itself the simplest form of consultative network. The necessary rigor, respect for method, etc., will either emerge from the necessity of not screwing up the important stuff or we probably won't do so well.
Excellent answer! I appreciate you, Shawn!
Everyone else: Organizing Anarchy
Me: Organizing a Narchy
I think there’s an inherent human need to work as a unit without subjugation. I’m not sure if your particular setup would work as intended; political systems of don’t. But if any country were to try an approach to anarchy that worked on an industrial scale, it would change the world and I think it would make a lot of people lives far better.
I don’t know how possible it is on a large scale, but I really hope there is a way to achieve it successfully. I’d especially wonder how a military and defense would work, or if the military would just work differently from civilian life, as is the case with most countries
Thank you for another wonderfully informative and thoughtful video. I’d love to stand with you and those with a similar vision. People who want to make something beautiful, truly good, and sustainable.
Anarchy might be able to exist, but only in a world with a much much smaller population. It’s naive to think millions of people who live on top of each other would all just get along without a social contract enshrined in law.
it would splinter into factions, clans and families. Due to inefficiencies of smaller scale industries and production, ressources will be limited. these Groups will then compete and war for these ressources. Anarchy never really existed. even if implemented other systems will grow to supplant it. Ingroup, outgroup. those better at violence will exploit those worse skilled.
A social contract and so-called law are just words on paper, when those in power get on top, they rarely abide by them. And it’s just their way to keep the people imprisoned. Anarchy is the only option for even billions because it increases individualism, voluntarism, personal empowerment, and it means that all people are equal there are no involuntary and abusive hierarchies such as government and Lords. It appeals to first principles and the golden rule which is “Do unto others as you would have done unto you”, basically anarchism is the philosophy of do no harm, but take no shit, that is something all people can live by.
@@Nightshift10000Let me put this into Perspective of how INCREDIBLY FRAGILE, are groups in general, political, Non-political, pro-state, Anti-State TO
Fear, Close-mindedness and Pluralistic Ignorance combined..
How do you think North Korea, a Dictatorship where more than half the population are soldiers and suffer, won't already overthrow him?
Because they don't know between each other who supports Kim Jong Un and who pretends to support him.
If they risked it, were they in a truly loyal to Kim Jong Un society, which they are not, they would die.
If they risked it, were they in a society that doesn't support Kim Jong Un, they would also die because they would peer pressure themselves into killing the non-loyalists, thinking they are surrounded by loyalists, which they are not.
Should they risk it, and every individual knows what everyone wants, they could easily overthrow him.
Seriously. Those issues will plague societies regardless of ideology unless they are highlighted in role of Politics.
Which just means the State can also get reformed to fix this issue.
@@SteveAkaDarktimes Here here
I love how all other political parties are always arguing and aggressively defending their views, while anarchists here in comment sections and articles are all just like:
“I wish to discuss the ramifications of anarchy and human nature. Let us debate.”
I am a french 45 yo dude living closed to Spain of Durruti, and I am part of the "CNT" there, anacho-syndicate where we yet fought each other many times ( with words only of course ! ) about that "democratic" question ; To me, it's absolutely crystal clear obvious : In no way democracy has anything related to @narchism... Whatever it is direct or not democracy, it is still question of a vote for which the bigger number will... Rule. People really in love with the pure concept of Anarchism like me do not and will never vote :
They may associate with other people, talk to them, listen to them, act with them... And flee them if they are in process of voting. As soon as one is using the vote, one makes happening a first element of Power between present persons : Are your ideas, or someone's else, worthing less if less shared ? I don't think so, and I often think the exact opposite in such a society rotten by private property, that one being split in a pyramidal fractal way, to ensure each above layer step is forcing each below layer step for ...ever. That they call the "order".
I think you can only accept to resign your ideas decently because either you changed of opinion, or because you're legitimately affraid of the number, affraid of what it can do to you.
Many far-right electors in my country do not really even have far-right ideas, but they just bend to their local bosses, fathers, husbands, who ensure to give opportunities only to submissive people around them... In my syndicate, I think most of the people who do not think like me just want to attract more youth, more depolitized people, and for such ones, direct vote is yet ...A thing, u know ? While consensus seems so "abstract" to most of them ...In the end, direct democracy is like an "Overton windows" dedicated to split anarchists movements. The day the CNT will allow the vote during general assemblies, I'll quit them for more autonomous groups. Still, seeking Anarchism is exactly what should bring any of us, including them, to absolutely avoid to do that, "to vote". If we're not agree, either we have to take more time to decide together, or we'll be struggling against each other in action, but to let the number winning before even starting the fight, is always making the Anarchism loosing the battle in the benefit of the static constraint forces applied by people hidden behind numbers, and without even having equal wills on the same questions ( sometimes just making allies for various questions while some of these questions could be really more important to some of the left minorities by that process : In the end, that process pushes to create wider and deeper social divisions and bitter resentments )
This "chaotic" decision system you propose seems deeply immoral. I don't think anyone should be able to try to repair a sewage system without seeking permission from the people who that sewage system services. What if they are more convinced of their competence than is reasonable, and flood my home with sewage? What if I tell them that I am concerned about this, and they tell me that they think my concerns are unfounded, and proceed to take actions that flood my home?
I understand your idea that 'consensus' is a bad mechanism for making decisions. It seems bad that everyone in society should have a veto on every decision. But to claim that no one needs permission to do anything? Even things that might ruin my life or kill me? That is a denial of my most fundamental rights.
Generally the idea i agree with is that everyone whom a decision affects should agree on the correct course of action (or agree on a compromise or a vote if necessary)
You are very much correct that the chaotic system that anarchists want adopted is certainly worse than what we currently have. Not only would it be more time consuming to deal with each issue without centralized structures, but people would be doing things with no regulations leading to wildly different outcomes that would negatively impact all involved. An example of this would be to go to countries or cities with little regulatory oversight and see what their infrastructure looks like. Spoiler, it is terrible.
@@brandonmercado8438 imagine trying to build a militia/army when the people in that said country hates authority. The Invading nation will have a very easy time against unorganized force
passively waiting and hoping that something gets fixed instead of taking initiative yourself never helps. the answer to a problem shouldn't be to just wait around and hope things turn out okay in the end.
@@sillyspiderYes, but we cannot reasonably apply that attitude to every situation. For one, expecting every individual to either be educated on nigh every societal issue that effects them to a degree where they can fix it is an extreme and unrealistic demand, and although you could argue that an individual could instead seek out expertise to handle such functions for them, this demands time and effort from the individual, far more than may be reasonable. Additionally, this doesn’t resolve the core issue. If there is a sewer system and a 60% majority believe it does not need renovation, while 40% minority do, how is that resolved effectively? Perhaps another sewer system could be made, but not only is that an unfeasible solution to all issues like this, and often impossible, but even deciding WHO needs the new system is rather difficult. As anarchists, rules would not be bound by authority, so the only real consequences may be mob rule (which has historically been terrible for minorities such as the queer and people of color, as well as generally).
Would it even be justifiable in an anarchic society to use force and deter the 40% sewer renovators, or hunt them down after the fact? Would that not be a form of authority, even if transient? If one defines authority as more of a demeaning , constant relationship but still allows for temporary rules or leaders in crisis, that seems to go against certain anarchic principles and leads to a sort of Cincinnatus problem, where there is little guarantee of such authorities loosening their grip on the community after the fact. Nevermind things like rocket science and surgery, which demand national standards and practices at the moment due to their immense risk and need of precision.
I actually am empathetic to anarchism and do agree with some of its takes on authority and how ideologies (spooks) can control us, but I am unsure whether a society that abolishes ALL hierarchy is feasible or stable, especially in the face of alternatives and outside factors. It seems a bit naive, or at least optimistic to expect a society that seems to handwave issues by arguing for the general goodness inside man and pointing to instances of community cooperation. At the very least it reminds me of libertarianism and their views on how unchecked capitalism would be “totally great” because the market forces involved would result in speedy, beneficial deals for citizens.
If I have misrepresented anything, please tell me, however. I really like anarchism conceptually and if I am incorrect I’d like to see how and why!
anarchy is needed for a solar punk world. there is no fascist solar punk, or capitalistic solar punk, there is only anarchist solar punk
But how is all the advanced technology required to create a solar punk world going to be made in a anarchic world? Things like solar panels, wind turbines and batteries are complicated to make and require a variety of resources that most likely cannot be sourced completely local anywhere on earth.
Hey, a fellow solarpunk anarchist.
@TheKillbot555 I believe this is included in their freedom of association with those of similar wills. Specifically those who are interesting in this tech will work with others to make it happen.
Still listening to the video, but I find the expectation of individual volition and cooperation far to optimistic.
Old anarchist living in the forest loves your passion and work. Good on you brother
Thank you for creating another insightful video! I go through your videos ever so often when I get the chance!
It's crucial to have open discussions about complex topics like anarchism and the challenges it faces. I appreciate your thorough exploration of the subject!
I do have some questions however, that I feel are major concerns with Anarchism that I wasn’t able to come up with a satisfactory solution to
Please note that though I have seen the video thoroughly, in my ADHD and short attention span, I may have missed some important points that may address my questions, and in that situation I am very sorry for the trouble
1. Propogation of Innumerable Complex Systems: We overcome a great deal of problems with basic Anarchism by implementing complex systems and processes. These processes come about through deep discussion and understanding by specialized and dedicated individuals, built up over time through trial and error. How does Anarchism ensure that these systems and structures are conveyed and informed and built upon ‘across the board’? Are spaces of encounter enough?
2. Security and Defense: As long as there are resources to be had, there are going to be extremely large scale efforts to secure those resources. Right off the bat, I can think of countries like China and Russia unleashing offensives on innocent countries in order to take them for themselves under authoritarian rule. At small scales, especially with modern technology, disconnected or dispersed militias prove ultimately ineffective to seamlessly coordinated large scale logistics and concentrated assaults by large armies with hierarchical command. What strategies does anarchism propose for providing collective security and defense against external threats without resorting to hierarchical structures or centralized authority?
3. External Relations: This is connected to the previous question, but also brings about other concerns. How would anarchist societies navigate complex international relations and establish diplomatic relations with non-anarchist entities operating within hierarchical systems?
4. Social Cohesion and Cohabitation: How do anarchist communities address conflicts and disputes within diverse communities and maintain social cohesion and solidarity over time? What measures are in place to ensure the long-term stability, resilience, and adaptability of anarchist societies in the face of internal and external challenges, changing circumstances, or unforeseen events? How does anarchism ensure its continuity over time, particularly in light of potential external challenges such as opposing hierarchical systems or aggressive state actors seeking to undermine anarchic principles? Additionally, how does anarchism address internal conflicts and disagreements within communities, ensuring that divergent views and interests do not lead to fragmentation or the erosion of collective solidarity?
5. Crisis Response and Disaster Management: How do anarchist communities coordinate responses to emergencies, natural disasters, or public health crises without relying on centralized authority or top-down command structures? Surely the lack of clearly defined and centralized coordination will bring about uncontrolled chaos and disruption, that would lead to greater losses, no?
6. Large-Scale Efforts: Without authority or hierarchy, and the freedom of participation, how can large scale efforts be carried out without disruption from internal or external influences? How can useful and even necessary amenities such as Hospitals function with need for extremely diverse and difficult to acquire resources and tools, that are themselves difficult and ‘expensive’ to produce and research?
7. Education-adverse Participants: There has been a significant portion of the world that has stuck strongly towards stubbornness and avoidance of educational opportunities or ‘imposing’ of norms, often resulting in disruptive behaviors and even worsening outcomes despite best intentions by these individuals. The likes of Covid-19 have shown this in catastrophic effect. How do we ensure that an anarchical society without hierarchies are able to deal with, and not be limited and ‘ruined’ by the influences of people who involve themselves but lack the proper acceptance or understanding of education, norms or consensus?
I'd love to hear your thoughts on these important questions and how you believe anarchism can address these challenges effectively. Keep up the great work!
May humanity progress towards the best possible future, with progress towards the systems/circumstances that best enable us all to thrive and live our best possible lives, especially with regard to further future progress, happiness, satisfaction, and prosperity. Whatever that may be
I dont see how the situation will stay the way you say it is unless it's forced to.
Idk about politics but I love the shire.
Halfway through but this is a good primer
Wait,so an anarchic community would be kind of like a minecraft village?
I will never tire of reading the comments under your channel, it fills me with a. um... i dont know how to word it.... a less naive optimism? a radical optimism.. its invigorating to see first-ish hand as people let themselves be challenged by that top shelf, Grade A, anarchic utopianism you bring to the square dance. or Table, wherever we're ploppin down the fresh and anarchic.
I love how it takes 53 minutes to explain how something that doesn't work works
And it doesn't even properly adress how communication would work between Communes..
Commune sharing info in a chain reaction with communes? Not trustworthy at all as a Commune always has the choice of not spreading it out or spreading it out with incorrect information.
Crime Prevention and Solution by Intermediation that won't even get proper Evidence due to non-existing criteria for proof and only through Testimony?
Not any better.
Great job! Very well thought out! Very well written. I'm already a fellow traveler, and I very much enjoyed your shaping of concepts. Well done, my friend, keep it up!!
This video is pretty great. Most anarchists ive interacted with have a lovely tendency to either not know what theyre talking about, or have no interest in lending their expertise outside of linking me to a book or 60 page essay. Regardless, I've educated myself about it and what you've said here aligns pretty well with what I've been able to learn on my own.
Do I call myself an anarchist or agree wholeheartedly with anarchist values? No. But I do consider anarchists valuable allies in achieving widespread liberation. Personally I agree with the end goal of anarchism, I just am more convinced by a different way to achieve it (IE a transitory period utilizing socialism as an economic policy to alleviate the burdens of material conditions rather than transitioning directly from capitalism to decentralized mutual aid.)
Side note, but I think it's incredibly important to begin practicing anarchism within your interpersonal relationships. Not just friends, but family too. There is no reason why you should be subordinate to someone else, especially within an interpersonal relationship.
Thank you for yet another insightful and inspiring video. Disregard the willfully ignorant smart alecks who 1) have never even watched any of your videos let alone read any anarchist books and 2) feel threatened by even the theoretical dismantlement of a system they benefit from upholding at the expense of everyone else
thank you for this one. i've been wanting to find some clarifications like these for quite a while.
i feel a very strong practical urge to do some "prefiguration". living as a permanent "tourist" who has fled their own country without any special status, having encountered various problems with employment, housing, food, medicine, and just a right to stay in some country - i really feel a need for people in difficult situations to cooperate and solve such issues collectively. and of course, why limit ourselves to these problems only, there are many reasons for many people to cooperate. but damn, my survival kinda depends on it now)))
The absolute best anarchist RUclipsr is Beau of the Fifth Column.
He is literally the modern-day Kropotkin, and he's made his messaging as accessible as possible.
He never uses the word "anarchy," avoids using words associated with theory, and deliberately appeals to those who feel spurned by politicians and politics.
He focuses on analyzing politics through an ancom lens, and also talks about the importance of ancom-style direct action.
He's also the single best political analyst on the platform, drawing on years of experience as a gonzo journalist, military adjacent background, understanding of realpolitik, and contacts all throughout the government.
Excellent video! I particularly liked your integration of Shawn Wilbur's work, and I'd love to see more of him on this channel! Great vid!
Beaaauuuutifully made thank you Andrew, so much fresh vocabulary!
On that note, I appreciate consesus as a helpful pointer towards the governance model you described, and am left thinking wondering around the distinction between consensus and consent. Coming from a lens of free enterprise (legally incorporated) design where we operate with holacratic/sociocratic structures and processes.
Am compelled to say I feel we'd get along!
Pura vida :)
Genuinely interesting video, As a socialist I never really got a good introduction to the core principle of anarchism and any discussion with peers would either have a poor view or some snarky comment. Whilst I may disagree with some of the ideas put forth I did appreciate this video as the only anarchists I spoke to have told me to 'read theory' - which is a brilliant way to get people to engage with your ideas as a layman, or have them not explain concepts and lore dump theory without context. The way you described the library of things helps me actually visualise how this may work.
thank you
all power to all people
Lot's of interesting perspectives to consider.
"having authority... (18:08)" with Bakunin quote 💛 sublime.
Do I have to get a weird haircut?
No be bald and be gay.
Thank you for this great and informative video, i do have a few questions after discussing this at length with my firends where is some of the ideas we came upo with.
1) How does a free association deal with resource scarceity? How is it decided where these resources go? Would this be accompished through consensus to determine which project is of greater importance? What happens to those left out?
2) How does a free association deal with "crime"? Is it up to the individuals around at the time to conduct their own investigations and judge these people on their own or would this be another example of a consultive association acting as an invetsgatory service to determine the truth behind an action the negatively impact another. How would this person be dealt with? I would imagine everyone would be trained in a form of citizans arrest so that every person has the basic capacity for preventing actions against the collective such as using firearms against an active murderer or tackleing and temporarily detaining theives before the consultive association arrives. After that what then? Im assuming rehabilitiation is preffered to incarceration but what about people who simply dont care about the crime they commit or people who only wanted to needed to commit a crime once? What is the deterrant to crime against the collective. Residivisim in rehabilitation systems is low but not zero.
3) How would this society be affected by individual jealosy and greed. If this society operates off of equity that being the idea of everyone getting different things based off of their individual need how would this society resolve these perceived "unfairnesses"
4)Would you Vett people entering this society, including those that align with your views and turning away those who dont share the same ideas of cooperation?
5) How would you deal with sponges and those who wish to live easy and not contribute to the commune? would rehabilitation work or would you let them be.
4:24 All what I learned about anarchy in school was “it means total freedom but it never works out.” There was no further explanation or so called examples.
Murray Bookchin, 'The ecology of Freedom..on the dissolution of hierarchies '
Difficult, but worth it..
This is an amazing piece of work! I absolutely love it!
It fails for the same reason other political systems fail. A few people take the power for themselves.
Strikes me as the main vulnerability too, but you know what, maybe with the Internet and with accumulating evidence of the evils of capitalism and its wars reaching a critical mass of the global population we could reach a near-global consensus in favor of the revolution and then there would be hardly any bad actors left wanting to go back to the old system. Like Marx said in the Mannifesto, the revolution would be enacted by the 'immense majority', meaning hardly any counter-revolutionaries left.
You explained it like no other, usually it takes longer for me to understand an ideology, ty 😍
I love this. I have been thinking about this since I was kid 😭